mightychurch.com

A week before the Quakes around Samoa and Indonesia New Scientist had a pertinent article. Quote:- “Don’t provoke the planet. If tiny changes in weather can trigger disaster, what will climate shift do?” Further reading shows the area of disaster this week as liable to “volcanic eruptions due to increased rainfall or changing sea level”
    God gave us science just as God gave us the genes to seek God in the first place many centuries ago. All hail science.

  God gave us science just as God gave us the genes to seek God in the first place many centuries ago. All hail science.

When is this hail due ? Not during Sunday’s Grand Final I trust ;)

I would of thought that Tolerance is the new God that everyone must bow down to

Actually Sheldon the new God,(again according to New Scientist ) is ” recognising that economic growth at all costs, not population growth, is the real root of all evil. ” More hail to that

Doug, even not-quite-Christian scientists readily admit that science is limited and can’t be the only thing to rely on.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/books/modern_science_befuddled_by_mystery/#9092

Modern Science Befuddled by Mystery - Kara Martin, October 1 2009

Review of Genesis Enigma and Why us? by Andrew Parker and James Le Fanu

I was not thrilled to be handed two huge tomes of scientific material to plough through and review. However the writing in both these books is surprisingly clear and interesting; and the conclusions of both writers are astonishing.

Rather than modern science delivering the death blow to religion, both authors contend that from an evolutionary science and a medical science background, there is evidence for the existence of God, and a need to embrace mystery and faith.

Andrew Parker discovered the Genesis Enigma while on a tour of the Vatican in Rome. He saw Michelangelo’s painting in the Sistine Chapel, with its depiction of the steps of creation from Genesis, and he suddenly realised that the most modern discoveries of science actually back up the order of creation described in the first chapter of Genesis:

Let there be light: Formation of the sun (5,000M yrs ago)

Waters separated from the land: Formation of seas and land separated (4,200M)

Vegetation, seed-bearing plants and trees: Beginnings of life including plants (3,900M)

Lights dividing day and night: Beginning of vision (521M)

Fish and birds: Marine life dominated, then birds

Living creatures: More complex animals developed

The fourth step is the one he has been most criticised for, since a normal reading of those verses would seem to indicate the creation of the sun and moon. However, Parker points out that the creation of the sun has been referred to on the first day, why repeat? Whereas a more logical conclusion would be referral to the first moment that vision was detected, with the ability to discern between night and day.

Parker himself discovered the beginning of vision, and its place as the “big bang” moment of evolution, the point at which predators were more able to identify prey, causing prey to evolve more quickly.

His conclusion is that the author must either have had divine inspiration or made an extremely lucky (and rather unlikely) guess. His own opinion is that Genesis is evidence of God’s hand in the Bible.

James le Fanu comes from a background as a medical doctor and writer for quality journals such as The Lancet, New Statesman and New Scientist. He examined the thirty major scientific discoveries in the last 60 years which include such marvels as the atom bomb, walking on the moon, test tube babies and the Human Genome project.

His conclusion is that rather than delivering certainty, all these scientific discoveries have opened up the mystery of life. We know so much, but there is so much more to be known. He also raises the possibility that science will never deliver the certainty that was promised by Darwin and Freud.

The specific mysteries he points to include: altruism = something that means we put others before ourselves, possibly lessening our own chances of survival; the existence of free will, the ability to choose and not just respond to automatic instincts; and the fact that both of us might be here at the same time with the same inputs but have completely individual experiences, resulting from our own history and our different perceptions and emotional interpretations.

Other mysteries which may never be explained by a materialist scientific approach: the richness and accessibility of memory = our brain can sort through experiences and remember not just the visuals but the feelings associated with that event; human reason and imagination = higher functions that eclipse our ability to understand, reproduce or even predict; the self = the non-material being that is distinctive, and unique.

Le Fanu contradicts Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism. He asserts it is rational to have faith because science reveals the mystery of life. Rather than faith being an excuse to avoid thinking and evaluating evidence, it can be seen as the art of holding onto things your reason has accepted.

He ends with a call for a renewed sympathy with religion, and an embracing of our Christian heritage; as well as a deepened respect for the unexplained and unfathomable beauty and diversity of the planet around us.

What are we to make of these new books? Their similarities are striking:

• Both mention Alister McGrath in their acknowledgements as helping to challenge and shape their thinking
• Both quote Christian theologian and writer CS Lewis
• Both mention the mind and spirit-expanding influence of the paintings of Michelangelo
• Both commenced from a point of religious scepticism but end up willing to embrace notions of faith and the existence of God.

While we cannot wheel out these books as arguments for the truth of the Gospel message, we can point to the death of materialist certainty as a philosophy; the willingness of new science to embrace mystery and the possibility of God; and the reliability of the biblical record. It is also important to note how great Christian thinkers and artists can have a pervasive influence through their work and their conversations. It is an encouragement for us to try and influence those around us.

Of course I don’t want this to become another YEC, creation vs evolution discussion but you get the point.

What are we to make of these new books? Their similarities are striking:

Neither seem to have strong evangelical doctrine.

Whether the authors express faith or not it appears to be a positive step toward dousing this myth of a war between science and religion.

It’s been interesting this week to hear Christopher Hitchens asserting that to be religious one must reject science and reason and embrace and irrational faith instead.  I don’t think anyone would disagree that the “religious” as he paints them are objectionable.  The problem is that I don’t think his crude caricature actually reflects the position of many religious people.  Certainly very few I’ve ever encountered. 
I’m beginning to discover that many considered atheists/agnostics are as embarrassed of their ranting fundamentalist bretheran as we are of ours.

I’m reading Rodney Stark at the moment and find his perspective on western history refreshing.  He himself expresses agnosticism but has a very high estimation on the positive contribution of Chistianity to the modern World.

On science he contends…

“Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and no where else”

What do we do make of this information ?  YECS will just ignore or denounce it - whereas others will be reminded of just how amazing our Creator God is :

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/dozens-of-dinosaur-eggs-found/story-e6freuyi-1225782258362

Dozens of dinosaur eggs found

From correspondents in Chennai, India   From:AFP       Fri Oct 02

GEOLOGISTS have found a cluster of fossilised dinosaur eggs, said to be about 65 million years old, in a village in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, according to media reports.

“We found layer upon layer of spherical eggs and body parts of dinosaur and each cluster contained eight eggs,” M. Ramkumar, a geologist at Periyar University who led a survey team, said yesterday, according to The Hindu newspaper.

The eggs, about 13-20cm in diameter and lying in sandy nests about 1.2m wide, were discovered during a study funded by Indian and German scientific institutions.

The clusters were under ash from volcanic eruptions on the Deccan plateau, which geologists said could have caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.

The nesting site was found along the banks and bottom of streams in the Cauvery river basin, containing clusters of fossilised eggs, dung and bone remains of dinosaurs.

“Occurrences of unhatched eggs in large numbers at different stratigraphic levels indicate that the dinosaurs kept returning to the same site for nesting,” Anbarasu, another survey team member, said.

The researchers have requested local officials to cordon off the site since a similar discovery in northern India led to a plunder of the fossils.

Well we will have Dino eggs for breakfast yet! I agree C————, well said. I just cant get involved in a Science v’s Religion debate. It is just a Dino or egg, which came first debate, which is pointless IMO. Since I am debating this topic , it means I am a hypocrit. Now that is worth a debate.

God made the fake eggs himself, of course!

The fourth step is the one he has been most criticised for, since a normal reading of those verses would seem to indicate the creation of the sun and moon. However, Parker points out that the creation of the sun has been referred to on the first day, why repeat? Whereas a more logical conclusion would be referral to the first moment that vision was detected, with the ability to discern between night and day.

This is the kind of silliness we get when scientists approach Genesis forcing today’s questions on the passage without doing the basic literary groundwork. This is another attempt to reconcile a ‘literalistic’ reading of Genesis with modern science rather than attempt the obvious… read it literally. Reading it literally means asking what literary forms are used in the passage. I heard these authors interviewed by Phillip Adams on LNL and just thought “Good grief, we may as well ask the microwave manual how to program a website as ask an evolutionary biologist how to read the Genre of Genesis.”

Dannii Willis - 04 October 2009 12:26 AM

God made the fake eggs himself, of course!

Or was that fake light from fake stars in a fake universe a fake 14.3 billion light years across, just to ‘test’ whether Christians would really be true to the bible and believe the world was only 8000 years old anyway, despite all the ‘fake’ evidence?

God doesn’t need to test us, the only times we believe him is when he grants us the grace to in the first place ;)

Honestly, everything else aside, I think the “vision and descernment” interpretation is complete crap. It’s reading a whole lot of junk into what is not there in the slightest. Far better to just acknowledge the chapter doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Dannii Willis - 06 October 2009 11:02 PM

God doesn’t need to test us, the only times we believe him is when he grants us the grace to in the first place ;)

Agreed, but the YECer seems to put things that way. “Are you going to believe the bible my way or the science you can see with your own eyes?”

(Where somehow all the peer-reviewed science just seems to get it wrong, every time, and assert the world is waaaay older than 10 thousand years).

Honestly, everything else aside, I think the “vision and descernment” interpretation is complete crap. It’s reading a whole lot of junk into what is not there in the slightest. Far better to just acknowledge the chapter doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Sorry, which one is the “vision and discernment” reading? This weird non-Christian synthesis that tries to read Genesis 1 scientifically? Yep, I’m not into that either. But the alternative is NOT to say that the chapter doesn’t make a lot of sense. The REAL option being left out here is “How was this chapter read by the original audience?” And for that I’ll leave you with the “Genre of Genesis” PDF I’ve relentlessly recommended.

Getting back on topic, I really don’t understand the derisiveness of this post.

doug leverett - 01 October 2009 10:54 PM

A week before the Quakes around Samoa and Indonesia New Scientist had a pertinent article. Quote:- “Don’t provoke the planet. If tiny changes in weather can trigger disaster, what will climate shift do?” Further reading shows the area of disaster this week as liable to “volcanic eruptions due to increased rainfall or changing sea level”
    God gave us science just as God gave us the genes to seek God in the first place many centuries ago. All hail science.

Ecclesiastes shows us that we don’t know the future with any certainty, but both Proverbs and Ecclesiastes reveal that much of the time we reap what we sow.

There appears to be the language of wisdom that both embraces the inscrutability of the future, but also the fact of the wisdom of what I’ll term ‘risk mitigation’. EG: If you’re lazy you’re likely to be poor, if you don’t plant in the “right” season because your waiting for the “perfect” season, you’ll wait forever and not plant your crop, etc.

So all I can do is ask Doug to read Andrew Cameron on “How sceptical is too sceptical?”
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/apologetics/63_climate_change_part_3_how_sceptical_is_too_sceptical/

Especially these paragraphs

How much scepticism is too much scepticism? We face this problem in every area of life, from whether or not we can trust our work colleagues, to whether our loved ones really love us and whether Christian faith is really true. Too little scepticism is gullible, but there comes a time when too much scepticism is a crippling disconnection from reality.

Humans can be wrong: maybe the problem has been overstated. That is unlikely in the case of the IPCC, which is an inherently conservative body whose processes have the effect of stripping out all but the most agreed-upon claims. But if it turns out that a false alarm has sounded, have we done wrong to respond to an alarm? Of course not; only fools ignore alarms. When an alarm turns out to be false, we may roll our eyes; yet the wise continue to sound alarms and respond. Holdren’s position therefore sums up the SIE’s current view. An alarm has been sounded, and it is prudent to trust those sounding it and work with them.

One more point is worth adding. Human induced climate change is sad, and there is a place for feeling that sadness. But the best response to this sadness is not denial, but to humbly remember the sovereignty of the God who still loves His world and who regularly helps people to solve the messes we make. Even if humanity’s excesses are changing the climate, we may still be people of quiet confidence and hope.

Also, a link to the following claim might be in order!

Further reading shows the area of disaster this week as liable to “volcanic eruptions due to increased rainfall or changing sea level”

Dave   Time and again in this forum I get accused of things that I have no knowledge of.  “Derision ” and “scepticism” are just two of these claims . My emotion and reason for the “New Scientist” quotes is simply to counter the heaps of bad press science has received from Galileo to the present, probably by faint hearted fundamentalists.Obviously time will tell whose a prophet and who is not.

Quite obviously the one who will be shown to be a prophet is the one who speaks God’s word to the people.

And of course there’s is a difference between speaking ‘God’s word to the people’ - and reading between the lines as many folk do ;) 

Has anyone else woken up early and turned onto the ‘reading ONLY between the lines’ tele-evangelists lately ? On ACCTV this morning Benny Hinn was spinning his prosperity web again - but then he does see himself as a latter day PROFIT ;)  Apparently he looks to God to send him $1,200,000 EVERY 5 days -  ” and here’s the address to send your donations to .......  “

Oh, sorry Doug but I took the “all hail science” as a sarcastic portrayal of worshipping science when you were actually light-heartedly congratulating science?

Anyway, still confused by this bit.

Further reading shows the area of disaster this week as liable to “volcanic eruptions due to increased rainfall or changing sea level”