April 24, 2007

The Dawkins Delusion Video…

I found this at The Resurgence. This is just great stuff. Obviously this is tongue in cheek, but the points being made about epistemology, theology, and the philosophy of science are very sound. Not to mention that whoever is doing the impersonation of Dawkins has got him dead on.

8 Comments »

  1. Very funny stuff. Dawkins was on The O’Reilly Factor Monday night and was destroyed by Bill. O’Reilly even said it takes more “blind faith” to believe in no god than to believe in God. I think with all the evidence we have in this world, he’s right. The sun comes up everyday and goes down everyday, the season’s change, and nature seems to work like nothing else that man is involved with. As one creationist put it, when did an explosion (the Big Bang theory) create anything? (other than chaos of course). The best evidence, common sense, and yes even SCIENCE (good science) points to a God.

    Comment by — April 24, 2007 @ 7:47 pm

  2. I wonder which creationist is was that said that? :) Of course I tend to believe in the Big Bang as the outgrowth of God’s initiation of the space/time continuum, but I do agree that there is ample evidence pointing to the existence of God.

    Comment by — April 24, 2007 @ 7:53 pm

  3. Sorry ArrowJ, but the Big Bang doesn’t fit into Biblical creation, and if you think that theory is the best explanation of how we got here you’re as crazy as Dawkins. At some point you’ve got to pick a side, Big Bang/evolution theories are just that, theories thought up by men who can’t test them. Not real science. I’m not talking about old world vs. new world creation, I’m just stating the facts as they are written in the Bible, man’s Big Bang theory just doesn’t mesh.

    Comment by — April 25, 2007 @ 4:05 pm

  4. As outlined in the article I mentioned in the Answers To Common Questions About Creation post, the Historic Creationism view would allow quite nicely for the Big Bang to occur. I will quote Mark Driscoll’s explanation of Historic Creationism here again with emphasis added for clarity:

    In this view, Genesis 1:1 records the making of all of creation by God out of nothing (or exnihilo) through a merism of “heavens and earth,” which means the sky above and land below, or the totality of creation. Since the word used for “beginning” in Genesis 1:1 is reshit in Hebrew, which means an indefinite period of time, it is likely that all of creation was completed over an extended period of time (anywhere from days to billions of years). Then Genesis 1:2 begins the description of God preparing the uninhabitable land for the creation of mankind. The preparation of the uncultivated land for and creation of Adam and Eve occurred in six literal twenty-four hour days. This view leaves open the possibility of both an old earth and six literal days of creation.

    I am not saying that I agree 100% with this view, but rather I am trying to point out that there can be, and indeed are, biblical views of creation that allow for BOTH the literal interpretation of Genesis AND the Big Bang.

    Scientific theories are indeed thought up by men through observation of general revelation, and a certain hermeneutic if you will. When a scientific theory is found to be fallacious it is reworked given the new information that is available to the scientists. Theology is thought up by men through observation of special revelation, along with the work of the Spirit, and an historical/cultural hermeneutic. If you believe that Christians have always had one systematic theology that has never undergone change with the addition of new facts you are kidding youself. Both science and theology are an attempt to describe what is the truth.
    To my way of thinking there is more than sufficient evidence for the Big Bang and even more evidence for the old Earth view. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence for evolution, in large part due to the inadequate time for complex organisms to develop AND because Genesis seems to suggest fully developed species giving birth to “their own kind”.

    Ken Ham
    Torri 

    Comment by — April 25, 2007 @ 8:03 pm

  5. My beard isn’t that nice. My beleifs don’t just come from this guy…the Bible has a lot to do with it; and of course, my distrust in scientists. Plus, don’t forget that you and I are on the same team in the end. God exists, evolution is false and Jesus is the way to heaven. Maybe this is how wars start between people of the same faith. Blogs Rock!!

    Comment by — April 25, 2007 @ 9:24 pm

  6. Doesn’t Ham teach that all sin (and hence, all death) started at the fall of Adam?

    Comment by — April 29, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

  7. I believe he does. However, I do not believe that all death is necessarily the result of sin. It seems possible to me that only death of mankind is the result of sin. Adam and Eve were eating everything in the garden before they sinned. This would constitute death of the plant life they ate.

    Comment by — April 29, 2007 @ 9:56 pm

  8. So human sin leads to human death, not death in general? That seems reasonable.

    Comment by — April 30, 2007 @ 9:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML ( You can use these tags): <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .

« Toxic Waste Review On Candy Addict…    The Resurgence… »