Jun 10 2008

Science and Creation Podcast

Category: creation,faith,scienceSteve @ 09:01 am

sciencenews podcast If you’re into the science of creation, Reasons.org has a great semi-weekly podcast called Science News Flash, available for free subscription through iTunes.  Each episode is anywhere from 5-17 minutes long and deals with a science topic that’s been in the news from a Biblical perspective.  Recent topics include everything from tectonic plates and earthquakes to the reason men have breasts.

Young-earth creationists tend to dislike Reasons because the ministry takes an old-earth view of creation (e.g., the cosmos was created 13+ billion years ago) while demonstrating the unity of special revelation (Scripture) and general revelation (creation).  YEC-ers tend to disdain the general revelation as somehow being inferior.  I have a problem with that approach because nothing God does is inferior.

The podcasts are great for listening in the car.  With each episode I am more amazed at the God’s creative brilliance and how clearly His fingerprint shows in His creation.

Tags: , , , , , ,


Mar 17 2008

The Heavens Declare

Category: faith,science,spaceSteve @ 14:51 pm

NGC-6357_Pismis24As a long-time space geek, I have always been amazed by the beauty and majesty of the heavens.  The Hubble Space Telescope and other space media sources pour forth incredible image after incredible image.  But that’s not the only thing that pours forth.  Psalm 19 says this:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun.”  ( Psalm 19:1-4a, NIV )

Everything that is seen and unseen reveals the hand of God.  All you have to do is look up.  Then again, even if you want to put your head in the sand, you’ll find Him there, too.

With that in mind, I’ve added a page dedicated to the hand of God as revealed in space imagery.

Tags: , , , , ,


Mar 10 2008

I Surrender All

Category: faith,scienceSteve @ 09:53 am

That’s it.  I quit.  I give in.  Yesterday the pastor preached through the science portion of Focus on the Family’s Truth Project, and hammered those who, like me, hold to an old-earth creation view.

I’ve got no beef with the Truth Project.  It’s a DVD-based small group series that provides a Scripture-based response to the secular worldviews.  Overall, it’s a well-produced survey of the issues of truth, theology (who is God?), anthropology (who is man?) and a number of other cultural topics.  Even the science portion is well-balanced, focusing primarily on evolution vs creation issues.  I would recommend the series to anyone looking for a solid small-group curriculum.

To his credit, the pastor pulled me aside before the service and warned me that he would be covering the material from a young earth view.  Overall, I have no beef with young-earth creationists, so long as they recognize that their view is one of many, and that holding something other than a young-earth view does not invalidate one’s salvation.  Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction many YECers want to take it.  I heard yesterday, and I’ve heard it many times before, the implication that “if old-earth creationists don’t trust Genesis, then they don’t trust the rest of Scripture.”

Horse hockey.  I trust every word of Genesis, and the rest of Scripture to boot.  I just don’t hold to that particular interpretation of the Creation account.

My spousal unit is the lone Protestant in Catholic Bible study.  She has frequently been told that Protestants are ‘incomplete’ Christians.  That’s what I’m taking from the young-earth crowd, as well – old-earth creationists ‘are still Christians, but….’

That’s a big but.

Here’s the question: how do I respond?  In every other respect, I am in complete agreement with the pastor’s teaching.  Do I suck it up and seek to respond in grace, knowing that I’m viewed as a tainted Christian?  Walk off in a huff?

Tags: , , , ,


Feb 21 2008

What’s On – Or Under – Your Plate?

Category: faith,scienceSteve @ 09:17 am

I’m continually amazed at how far people will go not to recognize the hand of God.  The title of this piece from Discovery News pretty well describes the secular view of creation – it’s all just random, ‘lucky’ accidents that gave us a habitable planet.

click image for more detailPlate Tectonics: Earth’s Lucky Geology

Jan. 11, 2008 — Four decades after the rise of the great, unifying theory of plate tectonics, geologists are still scratching their heads over a lot of the details.

Unanswered, for instance, are basic questions like how the shifting and colliding of plates got started, what keeps plates moving, why other planets in our solar system lack plate tectonics, and how important all the geological turmoil might be to the evolution of life.

“We didn’t get it all right the first time, so let’s ask the questions,” said geologist Vicki Hansen of the University of Minnesota at Duluth, referring to the fact that despite decades of work, many mysteries remain.

Hansen recently stirred the pot with a controversial hypothesis published in last month’s issue of the journal Geology. Meteorite impacts early in Earth’s history, she suggested, created the first rifts in the crust, jump-starting plate tectonics.

Prior to the 1960s, geologists were hard pressed to explain such basic things as how most mountain ranges formed and why volcanic regions and earthquakes were clustered in certain parts of the planet. Plate tectonics put these phenomena, and many others, into a single, unified framework.

That framework is an Earth with a rocky crust divided into plates that are moving, rifting, colliding and overrunning each other. It finally made sense of a previously nonsensical geography and is now recognized as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century.

Hugh Ross from Reasons.org understands that it’s no accident, and that plate tectonics is a necessary part of God’s Creation if we are to have a stable, habitable planet.

Two known mechanisms were involved in the delicate process of gradually removing greenhouse gases from Earth’s atmosphere as the ancient Sun brightened: (1) a continuous supply of exposed-to-the-atmosphere silicates (compounds containing silicon, oxygen, and metals that comprise more than 90% of Earth’s continental crust); and (2) a continuous burial of carbon-rich organic matter.

In the presence of liquid water, silicates gobble up (chemically react with) carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, forming carbonates and sand in the process. (See figure.) Bringing these silicates into contact with the atmosphere, where they can do their part in carbon dioxide reduction, requires a balanced cycle of crustal uplift and erosion. First, efficient plate tectonics must help create silicates, then push them above the ocean forming islands and continental land masses. Then, erosion must “plough” the crust so that more silicates are constantly brought into contact with the atmosphere.

This sounds like ‘intelligent design,’ but Ross is not a fan of ID as advocated by William Dembski and the Uncommon Descent crowd, because Dembski argues for a generic cause behind ID without explicitly stating that God is that cause.  Ross makes no bones about God being the Creator.

Tags: , , , , ,


Jan 21 2008

Come Out of Your Compartment

Category: faith,scienceSteve @ 11:05 am

David Heddle at He Lives has yet another great post on the science vs Christianity ‘debate.’  Here’s a snippet, but go read the rest of the article, along with the comments. 

I wish Christians, particularly YECs, would get over the idea that science and faith conflict.  All truth is God’s truth, by definition, so the search for scientific truth is consistent with Christian faith.  Not so, according to some commenters.  In my view, facts are devoid of emotional baggage, so any particular connotation, from either a secular or religious view, are appended to the facts and are not inherent.  Observations of the earth and the cosmos, for instance, reveal the appearance of great age.  If you feel that conflicts with Scripture, I would contend that the problem is not with the facts or with Scripture, but with the interpretation you bring to both.

This is an extremely interesting interview with a Christian scientist, Don Page. I’m not sure that I can find anything in the lengthy interview with which I disagree, and for a contrarian such as I, that is not common.

Speaking of scientists who happen to be Christian, a thread on Ed Brayton’s blog degenerated into the usual nonsense about “compartmentalization.” It all started when one person stated flat-out:

And no, I am sorry, but I can not accept that one can be a “real” scientist AND be religious.

Others backed away, admitting that Christians could be good scientists, but they had to “compartmentalize.” This is a description of a mental handicap, not shared by “real” scientists, that permits people of faith to be scientists from 9 to 5, and irrational beings other times, especially on Sunday.
But this is meaningless. No scientist is a scientist 24/7. Mr. Spock is a fictional character. I’m willing to bet that Richard Dawkins has had some irrational arguments with his spouse (If he has or had one. I don’t know.) If not, then he would be the first married man in history to avoid succumbing to occasional matrimonial irrationality.

Tags: , , ,


Jan 15 2008

A Spectrum of Beliefs on Evolution, Creation and Literalism

Category: faith,religion,scienceSteve @ 16:29 pm

Michael Patton at Reclaiming the Mind channels Vance McAllister at Submerging Influence regarding the way we look at the Creation account.  This is one of those divisive themes that periodically splits believers, each accusing the other of misinterpreting the text. 

I would also recommend RubeRad’s post on the topic at Blogorrhea if you’re interested in the discussion.

Vance’s view is that there exists a continuum of belief regarding creation and origins of life of earth.  He proposes eight positions. Generally speaking, the list runs from an extreme literalist view of the Creation account to an extreme allegorical view, and from a extreme negative view of the authority of science to extreme positive view. 

Where do you fit?  Is this an accurate description of the positions?

Vance presents them in this order:

1. Flat-earthers – believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold onto this belief.

2. Geocentrists – believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around a fixed and unmoving earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although it suffered a major setback after the late 60’s. They have a plethora of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism.

3. Young Earth Creationists – believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

4. Gap Theorists (a form of Old Earth Creationism) – Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that God created Man and all the animals at the “young earth” time frame (with a huge “gap” in between. Some believe this is a “re-creation”, God having scrapped an earlier version (dinosaurs, etc).

5. Progressive Creationists (aka “Day-Age Creationists”, another form of OEC)- Believe that the earth and universe were created at the time science says, but that each “day” in Genesis referred to an indefinite period of time. Genesis is an historically and scientifically literal account (using that alternate form of the word “day”), just that it happened over a VERY long time period.

6. Theistic Evolutionists (with a literal Adam and Eve) – believe in an old earth and universe, and accept that God used evolution as part of His creation, basically as science describes it. But they feel that there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden. Some attribute this Adam and Eve to an instance of special creation, others to election as “representatives”, etc. Also believe in biogenesis, not abiogenesis.

7. Theistic Evolutionists (no literal Adam and Eve, but biogenesis) – believe that Man evolved along with the other species (pursuant to God’s plan), but that the initial spark of life was immediately God induced. Some even push this forward to some mass special creation of a variety of “kinds” around the Cambrian period, with all the species evolving from there.

8. Theistic Evolutionists (abiogenesis) – God created everything and established the full system of natural laws upon with the universe and the earth would work. And it did work, entirely naturally, as God intended. With life arising at the time and place He had known it would, etc. So, here the “abiogenesis” would not mean that life arose without God, only that God built how life would first arise right into the “program”. This is not “deism”, however, since it says nothing at all about God interacting with and even directly intervening in His creation at any point in time (such as a particular event 2000 years ago, for example).

Tags: , , , , , ,


Apr 28 2006

Global Warming – If There Was Such a Thing – Is Over

Category: global whining,scienceSteve @ 16:02 pm

Courtesy of Jonathan at Mangled Cat:

Global Warming Is Over.   At least since, 1998, that is. From the U.K Telegraph:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Really. Maybe that would explain this.  Time to add the Cat to the links…

Tags: , ,