Category Archives: Science & scripture

An interventionist God?

I don’t believe in an interventionist God, but I know darling that you do sings atheist/deist/doubter Nick Cave before he proceeds via song to seek divine intervention. [1]  How much does God intervene in the world?  What modern believers – of all creative stripes – fail to recognise is how far apart all of us are in our assumptions/expectation of divine intervention from people in Bible times.  This should give all of us pause.  While no-one would debate God CAN intervene in anything as He needs, few (if any) believers would literally accept God feeds the animals every day, or dictates the positioning of clouds.  The Bible describes as direct divine intervention things we moderns understand as the outcome of natural (created) systems.  Why?  Because science has changed what used to be perceived as the daily actions of God into (almost) predictable systems.  Literal creationists read down God’s intervention in daily life – understanding them as just processes, yet they adopt a different approach in Genesis 1-3.
Continue reading

Advertisements

Scientific dating is accurate & refutes a 6,000 year old creation

Much of the science behind dating like Carbon 14 is not hard to understand.  The science can be readily confirmed.  The attached paper, written by Christian professors in Geology and Geoscience.  The paper explains how 4 lines of evidence support each other in giving an ancient age of the earth and life as we know it.  The authors also demonstrate the data absolutely cannot fit a young earth model (or even a young creation model).  Ie no literalist reading works with the data.  Brethren continuing to force their (semi) literal reading as the only acceptable/possible understanding are ignoring God’s reality and falsely judging His flock. Continue reading

Cats – another literalist problem

While we don’t do science too much on this site, ignoring it completely would mean turning a blind eye to one source of information.  Cats have a long history of association with humans.  Sadly for literalists this history contradicts their claimed meaning of Genesis 1-3.  Archaeology and genetics both demonstrate cats have been with humans – and tracked the spread of human settlements for 10,000 years – the domestic cat’s genetic diversity also plays havoc with global flood readings.
Continue reading

A climate of denial

Student protests in Australia over climate change have been in the news of late.  It makes sense that informed younger folk would be outraged by government inaction on climate – after all younger people will be disproportionately impacted.  Climate denial in the Christadelphian community follows a similar age pattern.  The blatant disregard for climate science is necessary theologically though.  Tens of thousands (and in many instances hundreds of thousands) of years of climate records fly in the face of the literalist reading of Genesis 1-3.  You can’t be an old or young earth creationist and accept climate science.  The two cannot be reconciled.  The heat on literalists will continue to grow – but much like old conservative politicians, the denial of reality is not over yet.

Literalist creationists become non-literal when it suits them

The South Australian issued “IEAC Reaffirmation Statement” claimed that the supporting ecclesias took the Genesis creation record as “literal in all its details”.  This is simply incorrect as demonstrated by Gen 2:19-20 where Adam names every animal and bird.  The record five times tells us Adam named all/every animal and bird.  This all happened in less than one day.  Do the literalists think so?  No.  They don’t.  They adopt an inconsistent pick and mix approach to Genesis 1-3. Continue reading

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

Collyer: Interpretations can be wrong

“We are fully aware of many objections that have been raised by sceptics in the name of science. We respect these difficulties and we can sympathise with the unbelievers’ point islip collyerof view. It is obvious, however, that there is grave danger of misinterpretation, whether we study the ancient writings of Hebrew prophets or the book of Nature, and we entertain a rude conviction that there is in one respect at least, a humiliating resemblance between the ignorant disciple of Christ and the learned scientist. Each is inclined to place over much confidence in his interpretation where his studies have been imperfect, and each is disposed to treat with contempt matters which he has not studied at all. We may leave it an open question as to whether there are any instances of irreconcilable discord between Nature and the Bible as we’ now possess it. There can be no question, however, that in many cases the apparent contradiction is through faulty interpretation on one side or other, or both.”    Collyer, I. (1921). Vox Dei. Continue reading