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 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
[a contribution from a regular follower]
“Roboam begat Abia,” says the King James version at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, and in 1 Kings 14:31 we learn that Rehoboam’s mother was Naamah the Ammonitess. This means that we are left with the intriguing possibility that the Lord Jesus was descended from Lot on account of his younger daughter’s misguided attempt to save the world.
If the earthly Jesus of Nazareth were alive today it could be confirmed by a simple test. The truth of it, or otherwise, was written inside almost every cell of his body. Our cells include a large protein molecule full of information – think of it as a three billion character tweet – which tells the story of our ancestors. For Jesus, if the technology had been available, it would have confirmed those “begats” in his genealogy and told him if he had an ancestor among the ancient Ammonites.
Three billion characters makes a big tweet! It’s about the size of three King James Bibles. But that’s how much information is used to set out the biochemical specification of a new human being. By comparing it with “tweets” from other people – and other living things, actually – a remarkably full story can be found out. This is because each person in each generation has one to two hundred non-lethal mutations, allowing the family tree to be inferred. Recently a criminal was tracked down by comparing his genetic information with a public genealogical data base, and finding his relatives. (https://theconversation.com/how-cops-used-a-public-genealog…)
For a relatively small amount of money you can have your own tweet read, if you want. There might be a chance that you too are descended from an Ammonite! A human Ammonite, that is, from the first or second millennium BC. Fossilised Ammonites are a story for another day.
As more evidence comes to light the work of so called “creation scientists” trying to promote their alternative reality becomes more difficult. One and definitely two centuries ago literal creation was the dominant paradigm but the weight of evidence – accumulating at increasing rates, makes that paradigm impossible to sustain. Old earth creationism – as accepted by our early community – was interpretation driven by science (geology). Even so called creation scientists make remarkable admissions occasionally about the reliability of evolutionary science and its predictions.
Stonehenge is one of the best known ancient sites in Britain. The remains of significant construction at what is now the bluestone henge on Salisbury plain date back to around 3,000 BC. Prior to the existing stones, archaeologists have found evidence of older circular structures as well as the remains of people buried at the site. Some of the human activity in the site date back as far as 8,000 BC. Fascinatingly, chemical analysis proves the cremated remains of non-locals were carried in leather bags to the site and interred. The Stonehenge (past and present) doesn’t reconcile with either a global flood or the literalist creation 6,000 years ago. Continue reading
Every so often people (including Christadelphians despite our old earth creation heritage) claim dinosaurs and humans co-existed. The source material for their argument usually comes uncritically from American evangelicals. One of the claimed pieces of evidence is a carving in a Cambodian temple. Why carve things which didn’t exist goes the argument? Continue reading
“Let us be under no delusion ; the Christian must not say that science should mind its own business, and leave the question of faith to the theologian, for if he does he is playing into the hands of his adversaries, and suggesting to the observer that he knows the weakness of his position” Continue reading
“we should all agree that the “faith” God requires of us has nothing to do with ignoring relevant evidence that is easily available when adjudicating truth claims. And is it not largely due to this abusive use of “faith” and “belief” that so many, past and present, are quick to dismiss Christianity and religion in general, seeing it as purely “faith” based, while taking “faith” to mean the opposite of evidence-based truth? True Christian faith is not fideism.”
Bates, M. W. (2017). Salvation by Allegiance Alone: Rethinking Faith, Works, and the Gospel of Jesus the King (pp. 17–18). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A division of Baker Publishing Group.