2.5.06
Would you Adam and Eve it?
Hey world. It's been a busy, busy month. The latest Robsters film is out and watchable at Robsters.com. It's called Don't Mess With A Ninja, and once you've seen it you'll know why. A review of the film will follow soon (or not so soon depending on my work-load).
On Saturday, I went to a talk by renowned speaker and scientific-community-annoyer, John Mackay. He was both crazy and Australian. He's also the International Director of Creation Research, who tries to show how the Biblical Genesis narrative is supported by current geological evidence. His main points were:
As far as Mackay was concerned, the Genesis account explains prefectly the evidence available, while conventional geology relies on too much evidence that isn't there. All in all he seems to be a catastrophist who is motivated by a strong belief in the literal historiocity of the Genesis account. This will always cause some contention as modern science demands impartiality. To start with a presupposition, such as the creation narrative, is to refuse to be informed by whatever evidence you uncover. This is why Mackay attempted to show that current geology is based on its own presuppositions, those of Lyell. Mackay maintained that impartiality is a false concept and that the scientific community continues to be partial to agnosticism and atheism, while theism is automatically discounted. Still, it seems unlikely that the wider scientific community will accept his views, because, as far as they are concerned, they aren't scientific.
I found the lecture pretty interesting and will definitey be following up on some of the issues raised. One question strikes me above all, however. If Adam had to name all the animals before he even had kids, did Cain and Abel get the worst names?
On Saturday, I went to a talk by renowned speaker and scientific-community-annoyer, John Mackay. He was both crazy and Australian. He's also the International Director of Creation Research, who tries to show how the Biblical Genesis narrative is supported by current geological evidence. His main points were:- Fossilisation can only be caused by a catastrophy.
- Loads of tribes around the world recount a global flood in their mythology.
- Global limestone deposites with land plants and marine creature fossils indicate a big flood.
- Rock strata can be formed all at once, in parallel, by a rush of water and, therefore, do not show the passing of time through increasing height.
- Current geology is based on presuppositions that have been to readily accepted without examination.
- These presuppositions were thought up by Charles Lyell, who was sneaky.
As far as Mackay was concerned, the Genesis account explains prefectly the evidence available, while conventional geology relies on too much evidence that isn't there. All in all he seems to be a catastrophist who is motivated by a strong belief in the literal historiocity of the Genesis account. This will always cause some contention as modern science demands impartiality. To start with a presupposition, such as the creation narrative, is to refuse to be informed by whatever evidence you uncover. This is why Mackay attempted to show that current geology is based on its own presuppositions, those of Lyell. Mackay maintained that impartiality is a false concept and that the scientific community continues to be partial to agnosticism and atheism, while theism is automatically discounted. Still, it seems unlikely that the wider scientific community will accept his views, because, as far as they are concerned, they aren't scientific.
I found the lecture pretty interesting and will definitey be following up on some of the issues raised. One question strikes me above all, however. If Adam had to name all the animals before he even had kids, did Cain and Abel get the worst names?
