« Outrageous Hopeful Asininity. | Main | Why Pulitzer, not to mention RandomHouse, should be ashamed; even though they probably aren't. »
January 18, 2007
THESE THINGS I BELIEVE, Part I.
The fun of this blog is that I can post whatever I want. If I am annoyed by some idiot, I can say so. If there is a political issue that I want to address, I can. If some frivolity suddenly strikes me, with this blog I have the liberty to express myself on a world-wide platform. Of course I realize that on this platform, I am situated somewhere behind the curtain, and just underneath the trap-door. But this doesn’t always bother me. I really do enjoy attempting to communicate with my fellow human beings. And in keeping with that attempt, the next few posts which I shall make will pertain to things that I believe.
THESE THINGS I BELIEVE, Part I.
Science and scientists today maintain an almost god-like status among the various members of society, and especially among those who would consider themselves to be learned. As I have no formal education, I am free of that particular fetter. Now it may seem strange that I have begun this series of essays by referencing science, but to my way of thinking, it is perfectly natural; naturalistic, you might say. And the reason that I have chosen to begin with science is this.
In the course of my Bible readings, I frequently happen across particular passages which cause me to think. That is, the passages cause me to reflect upon contemporary “world-views” which seem to be in vogue. One of the passages that I have recently re-read was this.
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, ‘where is the promise of his coming?’ For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.’ For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly me.” (II Peter 3:3-7)
The reader, I am sure, will immediately see where the two conflicts between what is here quoted and contemporary scientific dogma. The first conflict is in this statement of Peter: “by the word of God the heavens were of old.” That is, the heavens are in existence, of old, by the word of God. The second obvious difficulty for the modern mind would be where Peter says of the scoffers, that not only are they “willingly ignorant” that God spoke the world into existence, but also they are “willingly ignorant” that the world was destroyed by water. This flood—“Noah’s” as it is sometimes called—Peter has previously referenced.
“And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;” (II Peter 2:5)
The two “issues” then are these. First, God either created the world or He didn’t; and second, either there was a flood or there wasn’t.
One of the current philosophies—for I care not at all for the phrase “world-view”—declares that the earth came about by chance, men evolved from lower forms of life and god, if there is such a being, had nothing to do with it. Of course I realize that this is an oversimplification of just one branch of evolution. I understand that there are scientists who, while they would agree that men evolved, would certainly disagree that there is no god. But my point for stating the theory this way is that the average person, with whom I have spoken about evolution, would understand evolution in the manner I have described. Generally, they would not discuss any variations of the theory, so I leave the variations where I believe they belong; in the land of fairy-tales.
The second philosophy is much easier to summarize. God spoke the world into existence and then made man in His own image. (Gen. 1:1; Gen. 1:27)
Now of the two philosophies, I believe the second is true. That is, I believe that a strict literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is true. I believe that when God spoke, the cosmos came into being. I believe that when He spoke, the plants and animals came into existence. I believe that by His word the waters were divided, and dry land appeared. I believe that He took the dust of this dry land and shaped the first man and called him Adam. I do not pretend to understand how this could be so--the mechanics of it--but I accept this by faith. Contrariwise, I do not believe the account in Genesis is poetry. I don’t believe the account to be metaphorical. Simply put, I believe that these things really happened. My reasons for this belief are quite different from what might be supposed.
As I have stated, I am not formally educated. That this is not necessarily relevant to learning, Dr. Franklin would readily assert. But formal education is, to my way of thinking, sometimes a hindrance to understanding. Or, at the very least, it is certainly a hindrance to proper reasoning. Case in point.
Richard Dawkins wrote a lengthy piece on "Why there almost certainly is no God.” One of the things he wrote was this:
“(speaking of Christians)…their grip on reality is so tenuous that they expect to be ‘raptured’ up to heaven, leaving their clothes as empty as their minds…For years they [scientists] quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, [are] neither competent nor interested in science…” (Here, and here; Emphasis Mine.)
His obvious opinion is that those who believe the Bible—IE: Christians—are not “competent,” nor are they “interested,” in science.
This troubles me, for I certainly fall into the category of those who believe in the Bible. Does this mean that, should I by some miracle become interested in science, I am doomed to be incompetent? It would certainly seem so. My first difficulty is, however, historical in nature. That is, why has Mr. Dawkins ignored history in his analysis of what makes a competent scientist? Does he not know of Francis Bacon?
Although some would consider Bacon to be the “Father of Modern Science," the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, 2003, says of him that he was “one of the pioneers of modern scientific thought.” Yet Bacon himself, in his Essays, says of Christ that he is “our Saviour,” and throughout his Essays Bacon continuously quotes scripture to defend his beliefs. It is clear that Bacon held the Bible in high esteem. Yet if Mr. Dawkins is to be believed, Bacon was no scientist, and was certainly incompetent. But what of Boyle? And remember, no competent scientist believes the fairy tales set forth in the Bible.
Boyle, you may remember, was instrumental in the founding of The Royal Society—that body which was begun to promote natural science—and was an early member of the same. You may also remember that Boyle has given his name to “Boyle’s Law,” a thing which explains how pressure and volume, in gases, are related. What you may not remember is that Robert Boyle was a devout Christian. You may not remember that he “spent large sums biblical translations, and learned Hebrew, Greek and Syriac in order to further his study of the scriptures.” (Microsoft Encarta, 2003) Therefore Boyle is, by Mr. Dawkins definition, an incompetent scientist and a Christian with an “empty mind.”
As a final example, what shall we think of Newton? Here is a quote from the concluding remarks of his Principia.
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all...He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially...It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where (sic). Whence he is all similar, all eye, all ear, all brain, all arm, all power to perceive, to understand, and to act; but in a manner not at all human, in a manner not at all corporeal, in a manner utterly unknown to us." (The Principia)
Yet, I suppose, we must conclude that Newton was but an incompetent scientist; that is, we must conclude this if Mr. Dawkins is correct.
My second objection to the philosophy of evolution, I shall pass over quickly. Simply put, my objection to evolution is evolution itself. What I mean is this: who has ever seen an animal change into another animal. How would such a thing happen? What in nature teaches us to suppose that Apples ever change into strawberries? What makes us believe that trees grow up to be sunflowers? My second objection has to do, then, with common sense. And so far as I can see, there is no common sense in the evolutionary theory. As a consequence, I have no faith in it.
What I do have faith in is the Bible. I do believe it more reasonable to believe that God created animals “after their kind,” as He said He did. The convenient thing about this is that I can see it. This theory is a theory that is more than a theory: it is demonstrable. I have seen Humans produce humans. I have seen cats produce kittens. I have even seen sharks produce sharks. But what I have never seen—and what I do not believe anyone will ever see—is monkeys become scientists. For while it is true that the scientists are eager to become monkeys, so far as the monkeys are concerned, it seems to be a one-way street, and I freely admit that I lack faith to believe it possible.
Furthermore, I contend that my faith in the process of creation (as given to humankind by God in the scriptures), is not only just as reasonable a Faith as is the faith one must have in the unobservable process of evolution, but it is also a more reasonable faith. Mind you, I’m not here arguing that the Bible should be taught in schools; I leave that to Mr. Huxley. What I am arguing for is the very thing that these people suppose that they are arguing for. I assert my right to think. And though you may call it silly, superstitious and any number of other things, I hereby exert that right.
Well I see I have gone somewhat longer than I intended to go. As a result, I will, perhaps, write about the flood at some later date. For now I close with this statement: The very first belief which I should like to include among “These Things I believe,” is this:
I believe that “in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Adieu.
Religion&Science , Things I Believe | By Carl | 01:43 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/36102
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference THESE THINGS I BELIEVE, Part I.:
