One of the positions I’ve held is that Creationism and its sibling, Intelligent Design (ID) are simply bad theology. It is hard to find others who support that view, as most often the debaters are either devout Christians who support Creationism or ID as a matter of faith, or people supporting the physical sciences with as much fervor.
But I did find Henry Neufield, who describes himself as “…a passionate moderate Christian who is a member of a United Methodist congregation. I’m often called a liberal charismatic.”
While few deal with the matter of whether or not ID deserves our support purely on a theological level, Henry has written an article that deals with the very subject, Good Theology, Bad Theology, and Demons. I found it refreshing.
Few of the 58 comments share my view, so I may chime in there. Now the question I have to ask, is the great-great-nephew of the famous Methodist bishop of Africa William Taylor troubled by agreeing with a modern day Methodist?
No, even Methodists can be right sometimes.
Faith, Science
Seems one of my favorite Disney Fan sites, Jim Hill Media, is down with the terse message “This IP address cannot be used for browsing.” I suspect the site has been hacked, as it was there a few days ago. (Update on 4/30/06 — Jim Hill Media is back up and running, so whatever the problem was, it is fixed.)
And today I started the long process of ridding a co-worker’s computer of the Winfix vundo trojan … I have yet to find this particular infection subject to the same removal method two times in a row.
Maybe this internet thing was ill advised from the beginning …
Culture, Tech
One of my favorite sites, Panda’s Thumb, seems to have its share of what I’ll describe as strident anti-religion evolutionists.
Its not unexpected that a response to an unfounded challenge would be met with a dose of cynicsim, but its my observation that the more strident folks seem to be serving another agenda. And I think they do as much overall harm to the cause of scientific enquiry as a full frontal assault by Creationists. Maybe more.
Read more…
Faith, Science
There is some “controversy” over the premier of United 93, the film both liberal and conservative reviewers are saying is “not political, not ideological” (Roger Ebert) with “supurb production values” (Michael Medved). Where’s the controversy?
There’s a reluctance in our poisoned political atmosphere to give any ground, and some of the hysterical left (HL) evidently feel that an honest portrayal of events will incite or inflame Americans to blindly lash out at their muslim neighbors. That’s their story, anyway.
Please … we didn’t do it on the day it happened, we didn’t do the week after, and we won’t do it now. For all its puritanical self flaggellation, America remains a pretty good place, full of pretty good people. Its no mistake I use the phrase “puritanical self flaggellation” … even though the mostly secular hysterical left engages in it, it is a uniquely American practice borne of our puritanical past. I think the HL is afraid the conservatives are right, and they don’t want to relive the days after 9/11 when the country was united in its opposition to evil.
David Beamer has chimed in on the movie on Opinion Journal. David is the father of 9/11 and Flight 93 hero Todd Beamer who’s final words inspired Let’s Roll, a song by unrepentant liberals Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.
Liberals should see the movie first, then read Beamer. You may still disagree, but at least you won’t miss a good film because of irrational fear that conservatives may be right. Conservatives should read David’s column if they are considering ignoring the movie, for its a powerful reminder that remembering is itself the sine qua non of staying the course.
Culture, Politics
One of the questions raised by Creationists, and the one that had me stumped and in their camp before Stephen Jay Gould came along in the mid 1970s is the “Cambrian Explosion” (hereinafter called the “Big CE”).
What I had been taught in high school was that evolution happened through steady changes in the morphology, or shape, of animals. But the fossil record didn’t show that at all. What it did show is new types of life appearing periodically, but the transitional forms didn’t show up. Part of that I could attribute to the amount of “luck” one form of a creature would have over another to be fossilized, but if the changes happened slowly over millions of years, there would be at least as many transitional forms as established ones. If not more, as there would be many more steps in between the beginning and “finished” stage of the creature.
Read more…
Faith, Science