On Creationism

I came across an article by the "Centre for Intelligent Design' claiming they are not creationists. Yeah, right. I wonder how many of them believe God created mankind as is... (see this web site ) http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:intelligent-design-is-definitely-not-creationism&catid=42:rnr-articles Anyway, the article cites evidence for intelligent design, so I thought it would be fun to see what these guys count as evidence. But it’s when we look into the mind-boggling complexity of the living cell that the evidence of design becomes most apparent.  And it’s not just the chemical complexity which is breathtaking.  It’s the vast information content of DNA which poses the enduring problem of modern biology. What is the source of this functional, specified information?  ... All human experience suggests that such information arises only from intelligent mind.  To  propose that the information in DNA is a r...

This was inspired by the web page: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science To help us understand that science has practical limits, it is useful to divide science into two different areas: operational science and historical (origins) science. Operational science deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites. Historical (origins) science involves interpreting evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation. Sure. It is useful to divide science into science we like and science that contradicts our personal interpretation of Genesis 1, then we can just pretend the latter is not real science. Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we mu...

I came across this blog page (and the two that follow it), and thought it worthwhile linking to: http://frted.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/jesus-augustus-christ-caesar-i/ Its claim is that the nativity was was written to compete with the Roman claims of divinity for their Emperors. For example, it quotes:  “The following was found chiseled on the ruins of an old government building in Asia Minor, dated 6 BC: ‘The most divine Caesar . . . we should consider equal to the Beginning of all things . . . for when everything was falling (into disorder) and tending toward dissolution, he restored it once more and gave the whole world a new aura;  Caesar . . . the common good Fortune of all . . . The beginning of life and vitality . . . All the cities unanimously adopt the birthday of the divine Caesar as the new beginning of the year . . . Whereas the Providence which has regulated our whole existence . . . has brought our life to the climax of perfection in giving to us (the empe...

A recent post at Answer in Genesis gives an good insight into how creation science works. It all starts from: First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. And investigation goes like this: The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood. We see plants today. Therefore plants survived the Flood.  In other words, they assume their basic premise, and do what they can to manipulate the evidence to support their under-lying assumption. It is like science in reverse really.

The Gospel of John is complicated, as it seems to have more than one author. The most obvious illustration of this is the final chapter, which is clearly a later addition. Though it is possible it is a later addition by the same author, I would have expected such an author to have felt free to change the previous chapter to make it fit; another author is likely to have considered the extant writing to be sacrosanct. See also John 21:24, which further indicates the author of this chapter was not written by the principle author: John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. It is quite dissimilar to the other gospels, being more spiritual in its approach, but also in the story it relates. For example, John has Jesus' ministry lasting for two to three years (three pass-overs), compared to only one in the synoptic gospels. John has Jesus crucified on the day of the passover (i.e., the passover was that even...

The author of the Gospel of Luke gives the story of Jesus in a way that links him to Elijah, rather than Moses as is done in Matthew. http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4422/ The author of the Gospel of Luke makes it clear that he was not a witness to any part of Jesus' life: Luke 1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eye witnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Opinion seems divided on the author, with scholars approximately evenly split between Luke and some anonymous, Hellenised Christian. As for the date, this seems likely to be 80-100 AD. This scholarly consensus holds that the Gospel of Matthew and th...

The author of Matthew draws a parallel between Jesus and Moses, the most striking example being the flight to Egypt in the nativity. The evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew is poor indeed. This seems to be: It has consistently been accredited to Matthew from around the middle of the second century The testament of Papias The fact that only this gospel mentions that Matthew was a tax collector and details his call to discipleship In fact, the testament of Papias argues against Matthew as the author. He is cited by Euebius: " Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could ." As discussed later, modern scholars recognise that the Gospel of Matthew we have was originally written in Greek, and therefore is not the text that Papias talked about. The supposed prophesy about a virgin birth is due to a mistranslation of Isaiah in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew B...