Category Archives: Objections

Demons: A response to recent literalist claims

On 12.08.18, Neville Clark presented a lecture on the subject of demons in Scripture. The crux of his argument is that demons do not exist, and that every reference to them in Scripture is merely a well-established ancient euphemism for mental illness and/or mental disability. While Neville does make a number of valid points in his talk, he overstates the case considerably and leaves a number of crucial issues unaddressed. This paper will examine these, and present an alternative interpretation. Continue reading

Advertisements

The human ear and basic research

Once again The Lampstand Magazine (Oct 2018) has an article proclaiming that evolution is impossible because something is complicated.  Obviously they think this rules out evolutionary Creation.  However ECs are firmly of the opinion that nothing is impossible for God, complexity is no barrier for Him.

The article wonders “how could blind chance assume that sound even exists and that these vibrations can somehow be detected and translated into meaningful information“.  Indeed.  But EC is not beholden to blind chance but the infinite wisdom of the Almighty whose ways are far beyond our understanding.

Needless to say the Lampstand article appears to be totally oblivious that large portions of the development of hearing are well attested.  Indeed the development of the mammalian ear with its advanced hearing is an excellent demonstration of graduation improvement and evolution over time.  (see a simple summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammalian_auditory_ossicles).  The development of mammalian hearing provides significant evidence of development over time and many – what creationists call – transitional forms.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the Lampstand article is their use of Psa 94:9 which says “He that planted the ear, shall he not hear?“.  They comment on the passage saying “God has, as it were, dug a hole in our head and placed a concealed mechanism beneath the surface that will absorb His words and cause us to grow spiritually“.  Um no.  This adds mishandling of God’s word to their ignorance of science.  Scripture consistently uses the language and understanding of the day to describe the natural world.  For example Scripture talks about the foundations of the earth – see Psa 18:7, 15 104:5, Prov 8:29 and in a similar language picture mentions pillars Psa 75:3.  Arbitrarily taking the language of scripture as literal in some instances and figurative/poetic in others is inconsistent and poor method.  God speaks of natural processes as being under His direct control and His direct responsibility.  Eg in Psa 104

v13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: The earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works. 14  He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, And herb for the service of man

v16 The cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted

v20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night:

v28 Thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good

v30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: And thou renewest the face of the earth

Time and time again God is presented as directly intervening and doing daily things, bringing night, feeding animals, making them die, creating them again, making grass grow.  These are all natural processes.  Sure God can (and rarely via miracle does) intervene in these processes.  But the Bible speaks of the ongoing natural process as the direct work of God.

Literalists deny the possibility of God using natural process for creating and claim it denies God glory.  They would do well to consider Psa 104 which concludes that God’s natural processes bring Him glory, exactly as ECs see it.

ECs are proud moral deviants – apparently

It’s not exactly a joy to point out the misleading statements, the irrational claims and false accusations thundered off the platform at Rathmines recently.  Why do it?  Because sunlight in moderation has health benefits.  Rather than build up, the speaker found new ways to further pull down and appeal for division in the community.  Thankfully in all the condemnation he provides scriptural tests against which we can test his claims and thereby judge the validity of his strident calls.  Its pretty horrendous…some of the most ridiculous and offensive nonsense we have heard. Continue reading

Misleading accusations at Rathmines

After showing us his cavalier approach to truth and presenting some breathtakingly illogical arguments, the speaker moves on to add false allegations to the mix. Yes, this was a Rathmines Bible school, and a brother misusing the opportunity to build up, and instead engaging in misleading, irrational and misleading rhetoric. In the speaker’s mind, Evolutionary Creationists chuck away bits of the Bible – probably because of too much education! Continue reading

Poor logic and false accusations at bible school

In the previous post we demonstrated the misleading practice of the speaker at a Sept 2018 Rathmines bible school, claiming that an ex-Christadelphian atheist’s words are the current writings of Christadelphians.  But if you find yourself getting angry about such blatant economy with the truth, fasten your seat belt before you consider his outrageous logic.  The logic the speaker goes on to display is breathtakingly poor as the misrepresentations.  It seems as long as he is attacking Evolutionary Creation then there are no rules.
Continue reading

A misleading bible school talk

In October 2018 attendees at the Rathmines Bible School in NSW, Australia were treated to a passionate condemnation of Evolutionary Creationists[1].  Over the next few articles we will review some of the lowlights of this talk.  Gross misrepresentation would be a kind summary.  Too kind.  Long-time ex Christadelphians (atheists) were quoted as if they were Christadelphian ECs.  Judgements were flung, and irrational positions put over as unassailable truths. Continue reading

An example Creationist attack

Evolutionary Creation is regularly misrepresented and condemned in our community.  Frustratingly there is limited opportunity to correct the errors or deal with the poor logic on display by creationists (certainly not from platforms and in magazines).  Following is extracts of one publicly available talk[1] with a specific example of anti EC poor logic.  The speaker agrees with the evidence EC presents of non-literal language in Scripture.  Rather than discuss a consistent approach to scripture, the speaker instead opts for an out of context attack. Continue reading