This paper reviews some key points in the science-faith debate. Rather than attempting to evaluate different interpretations of the biblical creation motif, only one is presented – one that best fits the science and without violating the Bible. What is the rationale for starting with science instead of the Bible? The Bible primarily tells us the story of the relationship between God and Man. Its purpose is to redeem humanity and to glorify God, not to explain scientific facts. Nevertheless our initial assumption is that both science and scripture are good and they glorify God.For the whole essay, click here.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Science and Creation, Faith and Truth
This is an essay I wrote in 2010 on the topic of The Christian Belief in Creation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
orcid.org/0000-0002-3913-2209
Academia.edu profile
Posts
The fact that science gels so well with old-earth thinking rests on the assumption – a big one – that the earth has always been the same, i.e. before and after the Fall as well as before and after the Noahic flood. It is more than plausible that the earth back then was a vastly different place to the world scientists know today. Though dating methods aren’t necessarily flawed, their extrapolation into the past projecting vast time spans may well be. I personally believe that Sarfati’s treatment of Scripture concerning creation is more accurate than that of Ross. Conversely, Ross, whose ministry I had followed for years, makes better scientific sense in the light of mainstream thinking, but does so with considerable hermeneutical gymnastics. As for dubbing Kent Hovind a “notoriously fraudulent creationist” I don’t think it is justified given that his crime was for tax-evasion (on which I might stand corrected) and not creationism (many of Hovind’s ideas can be traced back to those of Henry Morris and other reputable creationists/scientists).
ReplyDelete