Recently, a biologist friend of mine asked me to recommend books that go beyond the minimalist though important argument that Christian doctrine and Scientific discovery are not incompatible. As a biologist and a Christian, my friend is well beyond needing to read another book that debunks the Enlightenment myth that presents a perpetual and irresolvable conflict between science and religion. In the scholarly discourse, both historians and philosophers of science have demonstrated that this conflict model is neither historically nor intellectually tenable. Nevertheless, this Enlightenment myth of conflict remains firmly rooted in the popular psyche.
Having been engaged in so many discussions recently that are only at the level of realizing that this myth is false, I had to pause and think back to authors I have read and theologians I have encountered who are going beyond arguing for mere compatibility. Continue reading “Beyond the Compatibility of Science and Christianity”
Life is filled with irony. The regular tweets and articles posted by Ken Ham and AiG are like daily receiving a box of chocolates. You have already tasted one. Should you open the box and have just one more?
In recent tweets, he has delighted me with the following tasty tidbits:
@aigkenham When a well-known Bible teacher visited the Creation Museum, he told me that the museum “exceeded his expectations.”
@panth_ian Yes, Ken, if I ever visit, I expect it will exceend mine as well. #howlowcanyougo Continue reading “Why Ham is Really Bacon, Or Irony and the Evolution of AiG’s Enlightenment Worldview”
The polemic against religion seems to depend on an assumption concerning the makeup of the world. A popular assumption seems to be that there are three basic realms the political, the religious and the scientific. Depending on one’s personal preference, one establishes an “if only.” For instance, those of us with a religious affiliation might say, “If only Constantine had never got involved with the Church, then Christianity would not be tarred with all this political corruption.” For any one of the supposed realms, one of the others can be used as a scapegoat for the evils of the world. Continue reading “Mad Science, Bad Science and the Cure for Everything (Originally published August 4, 2009)”
In a recent post, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell does what Ken Ham and AIG do in the majority of their posts. She responds to a recent scientific publication in which researchers write about something related to the theory of evolution or the age of the universe. Then she and the team at AIG attempt to offer an alternative explanation of the same evidence. Their explanation is supposed to undermine the conclusions and assumptions of the scientific researchers and validate (or conform) to the texts of Genesis 1-11 which they interpret scientifically.
As title of Mitchell’s article suggests, Mitchell and AIG see the problem as stemming from differing world-views or presuppositions. From their perspective, the presupposition of the so-called “secular” scientists is that the universe is billions of years old, the presupposition of AIG (which they base on their peculiar interpretation of the Bible) is that the earth is less than 7,000 years old and that the catastrophic flood described in Genesis 6-9 was a global flood and occured around 4,300 years ago. Like AIG, I do think there is a clash of world-views and presuppositions going on in this “debate” (it cannot be called a dialogue) but it is not the clash identified by Ken Ham and AIG. The clash is between the implicit skepticism of AIG and the historical Christian tradition. Continue reading “Ken Ham’s Humean Skepticism or “Hey, Ham Your Enlightened Roots Are Showing””