- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostMeet the Ministries: Truth for Life
- Next Post »Free Stuff Fridays
A La Carte (2/19)
- 02/19/10
- 17
Americans Released from Haiti
This video shows Silas and Paul Thompson (you remember that I interviewed Renee Thompson last week) safe and sound in Kansas City. The video includes a statement and a brief press conference.
Randy Alcorn on Six Day Creation
Alcorn says pretty much what I’d say: “To me it just seems so difficult to find other positions in Genesis 1, other than the literal 24-hour days position, without importing them. Hard to see them there to export! I have read widely the Intelligent Design material and I like it. I believe it certainly serves a good purpose, but its assumption of the old universe may not be valid.”
How Google and Facebook Invade Your Privacy
It’s well worth reading this article (or one of the many like it) and reflecting on what it means that we so easily give away so much information about ourselves. “What’s happening is that our privacy has become a kind of currency. It’s what we use to pay for online services. Google charges nothing for Gmail; instead, it reads your e-mail and sends you advertisements based on keywords in your private messages. The real holy grail is your list of friends. With that information, marketers can start sending more targeted messages…”
Octavius Winslow
Matthew Blair has created a blog dedicated to the work of Octavius Winslow.
Men Make Mistakes
“The Bible Was Only Written by Men…and Men Make Mistakes.” Greg Koukl briefly answers this faulty line of reasoning for doubting the validity of the Bible.
This video shows Silas and Paul Thompson (you remember that I interviewed Renee Thompson last week) safe and sound in Kansas City. The video includes a statement and a brief press conference.
Randy Alcorn on Six Day Creation
Alcorn says pretty much what I’d say: “To me it just seems so difficult to find other positions in Genesis 1, other than the literal 24-hour days position, without importing them. Hard to see them there to export! I have read widely the Intelligent Design material and I like it. I believe it certainly serves a good purpose, but its assumption of the old universe may not be valid.”
How Google and Facebook Invade Your Privacy
It’s well worth reading this article (or one of the many like it) and reflecting on what it means that we so easily give away so much information about ourselves. “What’s happening is that our privacy has become a kind of currency. It’s what we use to pay for online services. Google charges nothing for Gmail; instead, it reads your e-mail and sends you advertisements based on keywords in your private messages. The real holy grail is your list of friends. With that information, marketers can start sending more targeted messages…”
Octavius Winslow
Matthew Blair has created a blog dedicated to the work of Octavius Winslow.
Men Make Mistakes
“The Bible Was Only Written by Men…and Men Make Mistakes.” Greg Koukl briefly answers this faulty line of reasoning for doubting the validity of the Bible.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (17)
I simply wanted to thank you for the last two “A La Carte” postings. Seemingly each article/blog entry was timely, and several were passed on to peers.
I know your occupation and calling is mostly computer/internet based, and sometimes the amount of information is overwhelming, but your blog has been very useful to someone like myself.
My job and ministry involvement do not allow me time to stay on top of media communication as I would like. I started reading your blog about 2 years ago, and due to your obvious love for the Lord and the truth of His Word, I trust the other blogs and articles you suggest.
Thank you for being a resource. Thank you for writing for the glory of God.
With regard to Randy Alcorn and 6 day creation, I am afraid that the “assumption of the old universe may not be valid” is really choosing not to recognise reality. I have been a scientist for 30 years and a Christian for 20. The scientific evidence for a very old earth is absolutely compelling, and apart from Genesis 1, there is no real evidence for recent 6 day creation. There is also extremely good (not perfect) evidence for evolution, but of course this brings up the difficulties mentioned with regard to the Fall and death etc. The question is, are you willing to disregard scientific data to believe Genesis is literally true? Most Christians are happy to accept scientific data with regard to most things (e.g. medical treatment), but then refuse to accept it when it concerns origins. There is no conspiracy in science to undermine faith, and indeed there are many scientists who are Christians as well as many who profess atheism. However, the science does point in directions that are uncomfortable for young earth creationists.
What about John Sailhamer’s perspective that incorporates an old-earth with a literal, miraculous 6-day creation?
I believe he details this perspective in his book, Genesis Unbound:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Unbound-Provocative-Creation-Account/dp/0880708689
Edmundwest,
I started listening to you until you said there is ‘extremely good’ evidence for evolution. That is manifestly untrue. I have looked considerably into this area and any honest person would have to admit that the evidence for evolution is very poor. Even atheists and agnostics are starting to say as much (Berlinski, Nagel, Fodor etc).
Have you read any of the ID literature? May I suggest the following 5 titles:
Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial.Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box.William Dembski, The Design Revolution.Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution.Stephen Meyer, Signature in the Cell.
If you are not familiar with these key works then I do not think you can say the evidence for evolution is ‘extremely good’.
No hard feelings.Henry
Edmundwest,
The opposite view would be that any purely scientific explanation of historic events should not trump credible eyewitness, historic evidence.
For example, if the historic record is correct that Mount St. Helens erupted in 1986 then we should not accept the scientific conclusion that the resultant lava dome is between 0.5 and 2.8 million years old based on radiometric dating results.
Therefore, I’d argue, the primary question should be what do the Scriptures (the eyewitness testimony) say about this … I think this is explored well in John MacArthur’s book ‘The Battle For The Beginning.’
On believing the Bible describes a literal 6-day creation: thanks Tim. I’ll take my stand there too; when we stand before God to give account, I believe he’ll find no fault in a simple faith in the plain words of the narrative.
Goodness! I’d much rather say that it’s hard to find any ‘position’ at all established in Genesis 1. Surely the point of the chapter is nowhere near establishing a position on how many days/years/whatever. Establish God as creator, yes; establish his Word as powerful and life-giving, yes. Establishing a position on how many hours in a day? Sorry, not sold. That’s reading our debate into a text that has far more important things to say.
In other words: don’t concede the chapter, no matter what your position. I’m fairly confident that as scripture, it’s actually had something to say for more than the past century and a half.
Denis writes: “For example, if the historic record is correct that Mount St. Helens erupted in 1986 then we should not accept the scientific conclusion that the resultant lava dome is between 0.5 and 2.8 million years old based on radiometric dating results.”
Mount Saint Helens actually erupted in 1980, which provides an excellent refutation of your very argument. When someone makes an incorrect claim (whether out of ignorance or malice), are we to accept their word merely because it’s a ‘first-hand’ account? Of course not. “Eyewitness” accounts have been proven to be of dubious reliability; this is why DNA evidence always trumps the claims of an “eyewitness”. And, of course, in the case of the Bible, not even the human writers claim to have been eyewitnesses to the Creation story.
Those of you who doubt the Genesis account need to pick up Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth, by Drs. Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury. I used to hold every one of your atheistic Darwinian view that seeks to marry itself with old earth Creationism. I am now a six-day literal Creation based on overwhelming evidence the two contributing editors put forth in the book. And I remain a practicing scientist.
Strange, I don’t recall Genesis ever mentioning the age of anything…
Jeremy said: “Strange, I don’t recall Genesis ever mentioning the age of anything…”
Look again, although if one reads the Genesis account casually they may miss it. Never the less Genesis chapter one does mention it.For instance, we see things like the first day right on through to the 7th day.What is significant about that?If we look at the Hebrew word for “day” which is “Yom”, hermeneutically speaking throughout the Old Testament, whenever ‘Yom” is used with a numeral, it is referring to a 24 hour period of time.This is something that is even admitted by many theologians that believe in an Old Earth, but they usually have excuses why they don’t believe “Yom” in Genesis chapter one is a 24 hour period of time. However, follow their reasoning a little further and you will usually find that they are importing outside information (i.e. scientific theory) into the text.I believe this is a bad practice, mainly because it doesn’t allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. This by the way is something that many of the same people insist on when interpreting other parts of Scripture.There is a lot more to this, than I have mentioned, but I only mention this to wet your appetite for studying this matter yourself, using the Bible rather than scientific theory to guide you.
Tom,
Sorry for the confusion, I’m more referring to the age of the cosmos, rather than the “time frame” of creation (i.e. is a literal creation possible within a billions year old universe?). As to such questions my mind isn’t made up; I’ve heard the grammatical arguments before, but have also - like you mentioned - known many to reject it. For now I’m secure in the one truth no side can deny (and I’ll suggest, the more important truth): God and God alone is creator.
To both Edmundwest and Dr. Peter Horowitz, what fields of science do you both work in? I am fascinated by how the two of you would arrive at such different conclusions.
I am a biomedical scientist with around 100 publications. I don’t know of any colleagues, Christian or not, who hold a 6-day creation worldview. However I am also in the UK, where I am certain that 6 day creation/evolution is less of an issue to faith than in the USA. I usually find that scientists who adhere to young earth/6 day are normally not biological scientists, for which there must be an explanation?
A couple of other points:
Although I find the area of ID worthy of consideration, I find the standard of science used by 6-day creationists to be woefully bad, and sometimes frankly embarrassing. Organisations like AIG use poor science that does not stand up to rigorous examination (e.g. rubbishing all radiodating techniques on the basis of one spurious result, whilst 99% of the rest of the dating methods tell us the earth is about 4.5 billion years old). I am perfectly willing to listen to science from 6-day creationists, but it needs to be serious science, and not pseudoscience. The scientific qualifications of people who talk science and 6-day creationism need to be examined (e.g. many such people with PhDs have them in e.g. philosophy or history rather than hard science)
Secondly, I object to the demonisation of Charles Darwin, particularly the “atheistic Darwinism” type approach. Darwin was a great scientist and is honoured by being buried in Westminster Abbey. He did not argue for atheism and he said nothing about the origin of the universe. He described the data as he collected it and as he interpreted it. It is wicked the way that his name is dragged through the mud by young earth creationists. Now Dawkins is another matter…..!
JerWhen I stand before God my maker I will do so clothed in Christ’s righteousness alone. I somehow don’t believe that what I understand about young earth-old earth will even be judged… We may all be stand corrected - I’m sure lovingly by a Father who takes a child aside and says ‘this is how it really is… ’.
Kathleen,
Please don’t hold me up as a reason to doubt the Scriptures; that I get stuff wrong isn’t surprising, but the Bible is inerrant in what it says. God is infinitely more capable and trustworthy than some random guy commenting on a blog post.
As to the eyewitness? Well, the one who created everything also inspired the written account. I figure he would have a pretty clear idea about what happened and do not think he was mistaken.
As I side note, I didn’t actually argue for a young earth interpretation (though that is what I hold). All I was saying is that reliable eyewitness testimony is the best way to know what has happened in history. If one holds to the inspiration & inerrancy of Scripture, then the natural conclusion is that what we have recorded in the Scriptures is a completely accurate (but not necessarily comprehensive) history of the world.