“…she appearsto grant YEC equal legitimacy with evolution and yet a sort of immunity to criticism that no creationist would permit for evolutionary science.” Well yes, an element of partial truth in this. But she obviously thinks YEC more legitimate than evolution, so not equal legitimacy. And whether she grants an immunity to criticism is somewhat irrelevant, isn’t it? After all, it won’t stop the criticism. Many evolutionists have also done the same, you know, in accepting evolution religiously. That’s why rather than discarding the theory, they simply adjust and revise in order to maintain their basic principles of common ancestry, undirected change through mostly random mutations selected in adaptations by natural selection over time. Its quite amazing that they have been able to continue to revise and adjust so successfully to retain credibility for the basic theory principles.
Your quoting Todd Wood is interesting, but you must be aware that other creationists would disagree with some of his statements, even while understanding why he makes them. You see, while the evolutionary theory has been motivational and contextual for many scientific experiments and conclusions, the assumption is usually that only the evolutionary theory could provide that context. Yet, there are many scientific discoveries, including in medicine, that do not require evolutionary theory as a foundation or assumption. Even Todd agrees that while the evolutionary theory seems to provide a rational context for many scientific conclusions, he points out that he does not necessarily agree that it provides the only context or the only framework, and thus he disagrees with a common ancestry, in spite of most evolutionists believing firmly in it.
I think Todd Wood’s request for five low level theories within the grand theory of creation is appreciated. I think parts of them exist, but they could be formulated and stated more clearly and precisely.
I find your last two paragraphs to be confusing…. I don’t think Helder is dishonest at all. She believes the evidence she has seen and heard of definitely deposes evolutionary theory, although evolution theory is constantly adjusting and revising (as many valid theories often do). Whether she is mistaken or not, she is definitely not being dishonest. But you can’t survive on simply attacking someone else; you must in the end have a better alternative. Part of that is simply faith, of course, but part of it also, is substantiated by a different interpretation of the evidence; this is what she is stressing.
Ian Juby has put together some videos called “Persuaded by the evidence”, a conversation with five different individuals of scientific credentials and background. These individuals had formerly believed and assumed that the theory of evolution explained everything, and then come to a realization that it didn’t. This realization came to them after an examination and consideration of various parts of the theory. You can see these videos for free on youtube.
Personally, I don’t think the cambrian explosion is fatal to the evolutionary theory, because in some ways the evolutionary theory is like the theory of aliens. There will be and probably has been some explanation provided as to why the cambrian explosion took place; however this will probably require some kind of unusual event to have occurred. The unusual event is necessitated by the cambrian explosion itself, and thus will be proved by the cambrian explosion. Great huh? But of course, this explanation will demonstrate that unusual events are common? Or how do we know they did not happen more often?
Nevertheless, the cambrian explosion is not predicted by the bare evolutionary theory. It needs an adjustment in circumstance or environment to explain it; and that adjustment seems to remain to be hypothetical and speculative, ie; a sudden increase in oxygen?, a sudden increase in radiation?, etc. The YEC theory already has a number of “unusual” circumstances within it. Could it fit the evidence of these fossils?
Looking forward to your explanation of the cambrian explosion.
Norman, in your post about "knowing exactly how God does things" , I agree with you that we must follow the evidence. But we cannot be successful in knowing even partially how God does things if we assume God does not exist.
Jeremy, yes, there are also political and social opportunities, and I agree that it does not make much sense to send so much cash to a politically volatile region, which often uses the money against us, compared to utilizing resources which are closer at hand, including piping oil from a relatively friendly Canada.
Maybe John K, the reason the issue is not raised, is that there is no prohibition against caring for needy children. Maybe the issue is not raised because at least in Canada, health care is already available to all, including the children of single mothers. In addition, many pro-life people do not feel hindered in fostering, adopting, etc. In our small church of less than 100 souls, we have 14 adopted children, and support a mission project in Kenya which builds a school for orphans. Many pro-life people have set up homes or assistance for single mothers-to-be. Families usually support single teen moms within their family; while this sometimes sends mixed messages about appropriateness of "being" a single mother, it also confirms the value of unborn new life.
I often hear people say that involvement by youth ought to include participation at or in council meetings. I would suggest to be careful with that. First of all, real participation in worship, in celebratory events, in sunday school, and in other activities, is always possible for everyone, from kindergartners to teens to young adults and to the elderly, whether in organizing, planning, teaching or participating. But part of being a church is respecting the wisdom of older people who have been dedicated christians for some time, with life experience given to them by God. Usually that wisdom gets reflected on council. If that wisdom is not respected in a significant way, then young people who have been given that authority too early, will lose respect for it later in their lives when they themselves become older, knowing how unqualified and unwise they were in their earlier years. There are many many ways of having a seamless intergenerational interaction between members of the body of Christ, but council membership is not one of them.
What does it mean to be prophetic in our current culture? I think of prophets like Nathan who spoke to King David, Elijah who spoke to Ahab, Jeremiah who spoke to Israel, John the Baptist who was beheaded. Maybe Stephen was also a prophet before he was stoned to death. Generally their messages were unpopular, although sometimes, like John the Baptist, they gathered large crowds before they were put in prison. But the essence of their prophecy was that they spoke the word of the Lord, and brought people to repentance, and back to God.
Do you remember the story of the prophet who was deceived by another prophet, and yet was held responsible for his disobedience, and died as a result? Prophecy does not guarantee perfection, and prophetic position does not guarantee purity or a prophetic word in all cases.
In general, the significance of prophecy was that it countered the prevailing notions of the day, and yet was found to be true. It was often unpopular because it stressed the supremacy of God at the expense of the popular opinions and current authorities. The prophets stressed that Israel and Judah would suffer severely and be decimated because of the actions of most of the Israelites and Judaites and their kings in worshipping false gods on the high places. John the Revelator prophecied first about several churches in terms of warnings and encouragements, as well as proclaiming the promised future of God's kingdom.
I have difficulty calling someone a prophet when they merely follow the conventional and popular wisdom of the day. A true prophet was a leader, not a follower. Except for being a follower of God, of Christ, of His Word.
In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture. In other words, the confessions are really about scripture; they do not exist unto themselves. Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions; many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue. They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God. The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.
So what is a Christian's perspective on caring for creation? First, I would say that creation by its very name honors God as the creator. Second, Creation is not an accident, but has a purpose. Third, people were created to have a relationship with the rest of creation, in a very special way. It is a gift to us to be able to live in it, to enjoy it, to use it. As such, a gift given by God should be treated as a gift. This gift is also the means by which God provides us our daily life. Rejecting or mistreating creation is a way of rejecting the life God has given us on this globe. Fourth, we should not honor this creation for its own sake, nor worship it, nor assume that God gave us a weak, cheap, vulnerable world, or an inadequate world to live in. We can see that this world continues to provide amazing resources as our eyes continue to open when we live in it. We can see that we are pretty small compared to the amazing things that happen in this world, whether it is snow covered mountains, huge icebergs, giant rivers, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes. But we can also see that we have some impact on water quality, air quality, species habitat, diseases, weeds, resource extraction, and innovative ingenuity. The invention of the lightbulb, extraction of oil and shale gas, invention of computers, GPS, steam engines, petri dishes, anti-biotics, and plasma tvs are only a few examples of things that people in the past did not have nor understand, and it is likely that we will continue to discover and utilize things that are presently barely imagined. The gift of creation that God gave us, seems to be getting bigger and better all the time, and such a gift is not yet limited by our imagination. But denying it is a gift, by mistreating it, will reduce its potential.
Beyond this basic understanding, we then begin to debate some of the details.
What comes to mind is the difference between several prophets. Nathan convinces king David of his need to repent. Elijah prays for, or prophecies three years of drought, then prays for rain, after slaughtering 400 men (also called prophets, but false prophets). Jeremiah only prophecies doom and destruction, is cast into a well, imprisoned, but proven that his word is true. Jonah the reluctant prophet, needed to be taught as much as the people of Nineveh did.
Prophecy is not equivalent to earthly, nor even an institutional church type of authority. We did not hear often of priests (institutional church) being called prophets, other than possibly Ezra. Perhaps it is not an office conferred by men, nor even validated by men, but rather directly by God.
Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter. The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I read that already. You should read the third last sentence in that paragraph.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
“…she appearsto grant YEC equal legitimacy with evolution and yet a sort of immunity to criticism that no creationist would permit for evolutionary science.” Well yes, an element of partial truth in this. But she obviously thinks YEC more legitimate than evolution, so not equal legitimacy. And whether she grants an immunity to criticism is somewhat irrelevant, isn’t it? After all, it won’t stop the criticism. Many evolutionists have also done the same, you know, in accepting evolution religiously. That’s why rather than discarding the theory, they simply adjust and revise in order to maintain their basic principles of common ancestry, undirected change through mostly random mutations selected in adaptations by natural selection over time. Its quite amazing that they have been able to continue to revise and adjust so successfully to retain credibility for the basic theory principles.
Your quoting Todd Wood is interesting, but you must be aware that other creationists would disagree with some of his statements, even while understanding why he makes them. You see, while the evolutionary theory has been motivational and contextual for many scientific experiments and conclusions, the assumption is usually that only the evolutionary theory could provide that context. Yet, there are many scientific discoveries, including in medicine, that do not require evolutionary theory as a foundation or assumption. Even Todd agrees that while the evolutionary theory seems to provide a rational context for many scientific conclusions, he points out that he does not necessarily agree that it provides the only context or the only framework, and thus he disagrees with a common ancestry, in spite of most evolutionists believing firmly in it.
I think Todd Wood’s request for five low level theories within the grand theory of creation is appreciated. I think parts of them exist, but they could be formulated and stated more clearly and precisely.
I find your last two paragraphs to be confusing…. I don’t think Helder is dishonest at all. She believes the evidence she has seen and heard of definitely deposes evolutionary theory, although evolution theory is constantly adjusting and revising (as many valid theories often do). Whether she is mistaken or not, she is definitely not being dishonest. But you can’t survive on simply attacking someone else; you must in the end have a better alternative. Part of that is simply faith, of course, but part of it also, is substantiated by a different interpretation of the evidence; this is what she is stressing.
Ian Juby has put together some videos called “Persuaded by the evidence”, a conversation with five different individuals of scientific credentials and background. These individuals had formerly believed and assumed that the theory of evolution explained everything, and then come to a realization that it didn’t. This realization came to them after an examination and consideration of various parts of the theory. You can see these videos for free on youtube.
Personally, I don’t think the cambrian explosion is fatal to the evolutionary theory, because in some ways the evolutionary theory is like the theory of aliens. There will be and probably has been some explanation provided as to why the cambrian explosion took place; however this will probably require some kind of unusual event to have occurred. The unusual event is necessitated by the cambrian explosion itself, and thus will be proved by the cambrian explosion. Great huh? But of course, this explanation will demonstrate that unusual events are common? Or how do we know they did not happen more often?
Nevertheless, the cambrian explosion is not predicted by the bare evolutionary theory. It needs an adjustment in circumstance or environment to explain it; and that adjustment seems to remain to be hypothetical and speculative, ie; a sudden increase in oxygen?, a sudden increase in radiation?, etc. The YEC theory already has a number of “unusual” circumstances within it. Could it fit the evidence of these fossils?
Looking forward to your explanation of the cambrian explosion.
John
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norman, in your post about "knowing exactly how God does things" , I agree with you that we must follow the evidence. But we cannot be successful in knowing even partially how God does things if we assume God does not exist.
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Jeremy, yes, there are also political and social opportunities, and I agree that it does not make much sense to send so much cash to a politically volatile region, which often uses the money against us, compared to utilizing resources which are closer at hand, including piping oil from a relatively friendly Canada.
Posted in: The Church's Response to Abortion
Maybe John K, the reason the issue is not raised, is that there is no prohibition against caring for needy children. Maybe the issue is not raised because at least in Canada, health care is already available to all, including the children of single mothers. In addition, many pro-life people do not feel hindered in fostering, adopting, etc. In our small church of less than 100 souls, we have 14 adopted children, and support a mission project in Kenya which builds a school for orphans. Many pro-life people have set up homes or assistance for single mothers-to-be. Families usually support single teen moms within their family; while this sometimes sends mixed messages about appropriateness of "being" a single mother, it also confirms the value of unborn new life.
Posted in: Doing Intergenerational vs. Being Intergenerational
I often hear people say that involvement by youth ought to include participation at or in council meetings. I would suggest to be careful with that. First of all, real participation in worship, in celebratory events, in sunday school, and in other activities, is always possible for everyone, from kindergartners to teens to young adults and to the elderly, whether in organizing, planning, teaching or participating. But part of being a church is respecting the wisdom of older people who have been dedicated christians for some time, with life experience given to them by God. Usually that wisdom gets reflected on council. If that wisdom is not respected in a significant way, then young people who have been given that authority too early, will lose respect for it later in their lives when they themselves become older, knowing how unqualified and unwise they were in their earlier years. There are many many ways of having a seamless intergenerational interaction between members of the body of Christ, but council membership is not one of them.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What does it mean to be prophetic in our current culture? I think of prophets like Nathan who spoke to King David, Elijah who spoke to Ahab, Jeremiah who spoke to Israel, John the Baptist who was beheaded. Maybe Stephen was also a prophet before he was stoned to death. Generally their messages were unpopular, although sometimes, like John the Baptist, they gathered large crowds before they were put in prison. But the essence of their prophecy was that they spoke the word of the Lord, and brought people to repentance, and back to God.
Do you remember the story of the prophet who was deceived by another prophet, and yet was held responsible for his disobedience, and died as a result? Prophecy does not guarantee perfection, and prophetic position does not guarantee purity or a prophetic word in all cases.
In general, the significance of prophecy was that it countered the prevailing notions of the day, and yet was found to be true. It was often unpopular because it stressed the supremacy of God at the expense of the popular opinions and current authorities. The prophets stressed that Israel and Judah would suffer severely and be decimated because of the actions of most of the Israelites and Judaites and their kings in worshipping false gods on the high places. John the Revelator prophecied first about several churches in terms of warnings and encouragements, as well as proclaiming the promised future of God's kingdom.
I have difficulty calling someone a prophet when they merely follow the conventional and popular wisdom of the day. A true prophet was a leader, not a follower. Except for being a follower of God, of Christ, of His Word.
Posted in: Young, Restless, Reformed, and ... Disgruntled?
In the context you are indicating, I wonder if perhaps the biggest benefit of the confessions, is to use them as a way of teaching about scripture. In other words, the confessions are really about scripture; they do not exist unto themselves. Often we seem to go the other way around, to use scripture as a way of justifying or defending the confessions; many people would want to bypass this approach, since ultimately the confessions themselves are not the issue. They want to get directly to what scripture says about God, about Jesus, and about their relationship to God. The confessions help in this, but are not an end in themselves.
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
So what is a Christian's perspective on caring for creation? First, I would say that creation by its very name honors God as the creator. Second, Creation is not an accident, but has a purpose. Third, people were created to have a relationship with the rest of creation, in a very special way. It is a gift to us to be able to live in it, to enjoy it, to use it. As such, a gift given by God should be treated as a gift. This gift is also the means by which God provides us our daily life. Rejecting or mistreating creation is a way of rejecting the life God has given us on this globe. Fourth, we should not honor this creation for its own sake, nor worship it, nor assume that God gave us a weak, cheap, vulnerable world, or an inadequate world to live in. We can see that this world continues to provide amazing resources as our eyes continue to open when we live in it. We can see that we are pretty small compared to the amazing things that happen in this world, whether it is snow covered mountains, huge icebergs, giant rivers, tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes and tornadoes. But we can also see that we have some impact on water quality, air quality, species habitat, diseases, weeds, resource extraction, and innovative ingenuity. The invention of the lightbulb, extraction of oil and shale gas, invention of computers, GPS, steam engines, petri dishes, anti-biotics, and plasma tvs are only a few examples of things that people in the past did not have nor understand, and it is likely that we will continue to discover and utilize things that are presently barely imagined. The gift of creation that God gave us, seems to be getting bigger and better all the time, and such a gift is not yet limited by our imagination. But denying it is a gift, by mistreating it, will reduce its potential.
Beyond this basic understanding, we then begin to debate some of the details.
Posted in: So What Is "Prophetic"?
What comes to mind is the difference between several prophets. Nathan convinces king David of his need to repent. Elijah prays for, or prophecies three years of drought, then prays for rain, after slaughtering 400 men (also called prophets, but false prophets). Jeremiah only prophecies doom and destruction, is cast into a well, imprisoned, but proven that his word is true. Jonah the reluctant prophet, needed to be taught as much as the people of Nineveh did.
Prophecy is not equivalent to earthly, nor even an institutional church type of authority. We did not hear often of priests (institutional church) being called prophets, other than possibly Ezra. Perhaps it is not an office conferred by men, nor even validated by men, but rather directly by God.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
Following is the link to the article written by John Cotter. The article is actually found in several media outlets, particularly Vancouver Sun and other B.C. papers.
http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/money/pulpits+and+the+pipeline+more+churches+speaking+out+on+northern+gateway+project/6442692223/story.html
Posted in: Dr. Wayne Dyer's Positive and Motivational Thinking for the Spiritual Conscience
God is Jehovah, Jahweh, Jhvh. "I am that I am".
We are man, Adam, of the earth. Created by Jahweh. In the image of "I am that I am." Not identical to.