Pollination and Insuppressible Glory

The spectacular footage in this clip from 3.16 on led me to marvel, and to worship God: “O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Psalm 8:1) Filmmaker Louie Schwartzberg  honors a blend of evolutionary thought mingled with the neo-pagan mysticism of the Gaia hypothesis, suppressing the truth by not giving honour to God as God, nor giving thanks to Him (Rom. 1:18-21). But the footage reveals tremendous intricacy and mystery declaring God’s glory all around us, even in a groaning, fallen creation (Rom. 8:22). How incredibly beautiful heavenly glory must be. How incredibly beautiful and marvelous the new creation will be!

–from the archives

Every Living Thing That Moves

“Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures… so God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind… And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas… So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” (Genesis 1:20-23)

What is Man?

A reflection by John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan (1796-1870), converted from atheism to faith in Christ, and a life of gospel service:

“Here we are, with the heavens above our heads. What are we? Men. How came we to be men? What is man? How came he to be? And to be as he is? We are on the earth, and the beasts can’t ask any questions; the heavens are above us, and the eagle soaring into them can’t ask any questions. ‘In the beginning God created’ — man is God’s image on earth; man, the divinely-formed microcosm, of the dust of the earth and the breath of God. Continue reading

The Historical Adam?

Creation and Adam and Eve discussions continue to engage the attention of the Presbyterian and Reformed community at large. William Evans at Reformation21 takes note of Kevin DeYoung’s recent post 10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam and Eve. The aim of both of these posts is laudable – to defend the historicity of Adam and Eve in the face of those who argue the Genesis account is mythical rather than historical. However, despite noble aims, the posts seem more likely to contribute to further erosion of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. Continue reading

Defining Adam and Eve

Polity vs. Politic

In his recent piece “Change, Acquiesce, or Depart Honorably with Conviction”: The Unhappy Politics of Creation, Dr. William Evans provides an intriguing reply to the article “Hermeneutics and Awkward Science”. From his early article criticizing G.I. Williamson’s concerns on the historicity of Adam and Eve to his present reply a trend is becoming clear: Evans is arguing that church courts ought not visit or revisit contemporary interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, and that there is no need to define the historicity of Adam and Eve. Instead he labels a robust defense of church polity, the liberty and authority of the courts of the church to evaluate and define doctrine, church politic.

Continue reading

When I Consider Your Heavens

Yesterday several media outlets prominently featured a story on the possibility of “many earths out there.” The realities of scientific knowledge of these potential planets, thirty of of which have been confirmed as real (out of 2,326 sightings of distant spots that might be planets), are a long ways from finding a livable planet. Statistically only 48 of the total sightings of “something” fall in a potentially habitable range in terms of temperature in relation to the nearest star at sighting. But the variables that need to be met beyond this are vast and complex. At this point the only certain reality is that this is an appeal for continued funding for SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and NASA.

Continue reading

Hermeneutics and Awkward Science

Recently at the Aquila Report, my friend Bill Evans continued the lively discussion on Genesis and hermeneutics, noting a variety of thoughtful concerns. Yet, while doing so, he seems to indicate that proponents of the literal six day view, whether historic Southern Presbyterian, or other, fail to either grasp or fully engage with more sophisticated hermeneutic approaches such as the twentieth century framework theory as propounded by Kline, the day age, or the gap theory.

In his article Evans states, “he [VanDoodewaard] also asserts that the controversial work of Peter Enns represents a “consistent” application of a hermeneutic that finds a place for extra-biblical data in the interpretive process, and that this provides compelling reasons to eschew such a hermeneutic.”

My issue is not with having “a place” for extra-biblical data in the interpretive process. I, and the many capable theologians who hold to a literal six day view, believe that there is a place. To frame the argument in this manner tends to caricature, instead of providing clarity. The issue at heart is not whether there is “a place”, which most would certainly agree with, but rather what that place is in each instance, how it is discerned, defined, and delineated.
Continue reading