Stephen Lloyd also spoke of new landscapes with regard to
2. Creationism
Things have moved on since Whitcomb and Morris but there are still things to criticise. There are bad creationist books, etc. Often very negative, simply anti-evolutionary. Better to be positive. There are research journals and other efforts have been made simply to do research on a creationist model. New creationism (cf Paul Garner's book by that title) involves new people working in their own special fields. Eg John Baumgarten an expert in plate tectonics; Kurt Wise (who did his PhD with Stephen Jay Gould) a palaeontologist, etc. Such people are working as teams. They seek to be positive. Simply rubbishing evolutionists is not helpful. It is better to give a better model, one true to the Word. (A model is a story to explain something). Creationists have been developing various models. There are not only new models but also new questions. Eg carbon dating a diamond, looking for mica in the grand canyon where it is not supposed to be. It is real science. A model can only be consistent or inconsistent with the Bible, which is not a scientific textbook.
3. The Bible
There is a new landscape here too. We tend to think there is nothing new to say but some of the biblical arguments need developing, in part because we have been asking the wrong questions. There is a sense in which we can forget Genesis, which is pretty straightforward. Romans is perhaps more important. The Gospel Coalition helpfully emphasises Creation - fall - redemption - restoration in a way that sometimes has not been done in the past. We live in a biblically illiterate age and we need to press the story line. This is where we really come into conflict with Darwinism. Three crucial doctrines that are particularly pertinent to the matter of origins are whether
There was agony or death before Adam; Adam was a real human being; Noah's flood was a worldwide deluge
Dr Lloyd (as at the John Owen Conference back in September) concentrated on the first issue only (he has something in print soon). If we try and make the biblical story cohere with the Darwinian one the biblical story becomes incoherent and disjointed. For example, to say cancer is part of the original creation is problematic in many,many ways.
2. Creationism
Things have moved on since Whitcomb and Morris but there are still things to criticise. There are bad creationist books, etc. Often very negative, simply anti-evolutionary. Better to be positive. There are research journals and other efforts have been made simply to do research on a creationist model. New creationism (cf Paul Garner's book by that title) involves new people working in their own special fields. Eg John Baumgarten an expert in plate tectonics; Kurt Wise (who did his PhD with Stephen Jay Gould) a palaeontologist, etc. Such people are working as teams. They seek to be positive. Simply rubbishing evolutionists is not helpful. It is better to give a better model, one true to the Word. (A model is a story to explain something). Creationists have been developing various models. There are not only new models but also new questions. Eg carbon dating a diamond, looking for mica in the grand canyon where it is not supposed to be. It is real science. A model can only be consistent or inconsistent with the Bible, which is not a scientific textbook.
3. The Bible
There is a new landscape here too. We tend to think there is nothing new to say but some of the biblical arguments need developing, in part because we have been asking the wrong questions. There is a sense in which we can forget Genesis, which is pretty straightforward. Romans is perhaps more important. The Gospel Coalition helpfully emphasises Creation - fall - redemption - restoration in a way that sometimes has not been done in the past. We live in a biblically illiterate age and we need to press the story line. This is where we really come into conflict with Darwinism. Three crucial doctrines that are particularly pertinent to the matter of origins are whether
There was agony or death before Adam; Adam was a real human being; Noah's flood was a worldwide deluge
Dr Lloyd (as at the John Owen Conference back in September) concentrated on the first issue only (he has something in print soon). If we try and make the biblical story cohere with the Darwinian one the biblical story becomes incoherent and disjointed. For example, to say cancer is part of the original creation is problematic in many,many ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment