Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The Big Bang and the Bible: Patriots on Watch Radio


Click here to listen.

Mark shows that despite the Tuscon shooting, members of Congress are, on average, at least as safe as the average citizen- arguing against some urgent need to further restrict citizen's rights based on threats to the safety of members of the ruling class. Also, "the majesty of the law" is wholly dependent on it's legitimacy. Mark expounds on MLK view. Plus, the Pope has declared the "Big Bang" and Christianity do not conflict. Mark goes further, and makes the case that the Bible teaches the Big Bang, and that it actually undermines atheism.

6 Comments:

Blogger Linton said...

I agree about the compatibility of the Big Bang and creation.

Of course (and I feel like I'm in the minority of believers on this), I also think macroevolution and creation are compatible.

2:48 PM, January 21, 2011  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I think it depends on what sort of creation account you are talking about. It does not conflict with a deist type "prime mover" sort of creation where God got the dominoes set up and then watch them fall and did not intervene after knocking the first one over.

It does not square with the Genesis account of creation though. Maybe some ways to take those Hebrew words indicate more evolution than some fundamentalists are comfortable with, but the language indicates a fiat miracle on at least three occasions- creation of the heavens and earth, the creation of the animals who live or breed in the waters, including "winged creatures", and the creation of man.

I would argue that the language calls for intervention in the natural world more than that, but I can argue against macroevolution on purely scientific grounds.

5:44 PM, January 21, 2011  
Blogger Linton said...

I had someone once explain to me their view that if you believe the traditional view that Moses wrote the book of Genesis while inspired by God, then that inspiration could have been like a vision of the events described in the book.

This person said that millions of years of evolution condensed into a vision could appear to be 6 days to a person of Moses's comprehension writing during that time period. So I would say that it could square with it.

But then again that wouldn't be arguing macroevolution with science. Hearing anti-evolution speakers in churches all my life with weak arguments has only strengthened my views on evolution. Fortunately I don't think agreeing on a set view of how God created our world is essential to anyone's salvation.

Do you have anything I could read that provides a satisfactory scientific argument against it?

10:31 PM, January 21, 2011  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

There are two separate questions here. One is "does Genesis one allow for a "day-age" interpretation." Not in English, but in Hebrew.

The other question is "does it allow for a deist type creation where all the work is done before the initial event and the rest is just an unfolding without further interventions".

My view is that the answer to the first is "yes" and the answer to the 2nd is "no."

The church often confuses these two questions, because the preachers are usually not men of science, and perhaps even afraid of it. I embrace science, though not naturalism posing as science.

6:56 AM, January 22, 2011  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The book that iced it for me was Micheal Denton's "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis". It's an old one, but it also converted Philip Johnson and Micheal Behe. Denton himself seems to have crabwalked over to the evolution side, but he still can't explain why except that it keeps him in the scientific community loop from which he was in danger of being ostracized. The starts slow but gets better.

While much evidence has been found recently to contradict evolution (some of which can be found by searching this blog for "evolution", no one has ever adequately addressed many of the points Denton raised 30 years ago in this book. Most of the critics go to ad hominem, make assertions they do not back up, attack him for using old information that is still accurate, or attack his arguments with a view of evolution that makes it unproven and unprovable (whatever result appears could be said to be a result of evolution).

There is a place called Reasons.org that is one of the main homes for "Old Earth" Creationists. Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fuzale Rana are the two ramrods there.

I hope you find your answer...

7:26 AM, January 22, 2011  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

here is a 45 minute audio where I talk with Dr. Eckard on the narrow topic of the genetic evidence against the idea that humans and chimps shared a common evolutionary ancestor.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotsonwatch/2009/03/25/the-guide-discourses-on-human-origins

10:15 AM, January 22, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home