Best book on Evolution and Creation?
So here's the deal: I am looking for a quality book to give me an overview of where the discussion is at. I need this to catch up with the issue (that I have shelved for a while) and help someone else deal with these questions. This much for the general need.
Now for the particulars. What I DONT want is something of the Answers in Genesis books type that basically say that there are no challenging questions to face and that everything is a hoax, dinosaurs skeletons are patchworks made of cows bones, all dating methods are totally unreliable, etc. In sum, while I am aware of the militantism and pseudo-science that can characterize some evolutionists, I don't want the same from a creationist standpoint.
Next, I don't want stuff like Lee Strobel's the Case for a Creator. It's nice and interesting but non-scientists cannot evaluate whether what is said is as reliable and not fallacious as they make it to be and it cannot be accepted only because it is said by someone who says it in defense of the faith. In any case, it is of limited use because some of this stuff is always being debated ad nauseum even by fellow scientists and ultimately does not prove anything one way or the other. In other words, I am not interested in elaborate "scientific" arguments such as the cosmological constant.
Third, I don't want pragmatic, uncritical exegesis of the kind: I went to the dinosaur museum and was convinced, the earth must be older. Therefore days in Genesis must really be eons, argued through far-fetched exegesis (backed by academic credentials) and resting on broadstrokes arguments, insufficiently justified arguments. (I don't want Job's friends who feel they have to twist the truth to defend God and mount up elaborate arguments to do so).
WHAT I DO WANT is intelligent, careful exegesis of the pertinent biblical material that is made to relate to the questions raised by evolutionists and willing to admit, when applicable, what we don't know or can't settle. I want something informed, informative, sensible and solid exegetically.
So, does this book exist and is available in Logos? If so, I'd appreciate a pointer. Thanks in advance!
NB: please no debate, correction, or unsollicited advice. I just want to know if there is a resource that fits the bill of what I am describing.
Comments
-
I'd suggest John Walton's books on Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, but only the Eerdman's volume is available alone. The other is The Lost World of Genesis 1, available only in an IVP package. https://www.logos.com/product/40906/ivp-old-testament-studies-collection
Also not in Logos, Mark S. Smith's book on Genesis 1.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
This also can be terribly useful, as a history of ideas and interpretation.
This too, but it's not out yet. I have lots more where those came from, as I have a book under contract of my own, addressing Genesis 1 in its ancient Near Eastern context, which implicitly argues against modern YEC/Concordist views.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
If thats what you really think about AIG, then I challenge you to actually read and watch some of their programs.
Saying what you said about them is simply not true.
0 -
See if this helps. http://grisda.org/resources/faith-and-science-papers/ It would be good if we could get these in Logos.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Travis Walter said:
If thats what you really think about AIG, then I challenge you to actually read and watch some of their programs.
Saying what you said about them is simply not true.
Travis, don't assume Francis doesn't know the AIG material; rather, remember that this is not the place to discuss theology and therefore not the place to label what the OP posted as "not true" except, perhaps, on a factual point such as correcting a year, title or author reference. If you wish to discuss the truth or falsity of the AIG position, take it to ChristianDiscourse.
Note: I have read their material as my father was at one time a supporter but became a strong critic.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Ben said:
This also can be terribly useful, as a history of ideas and interpretation.
I would also second that book by Ronald Numbers. It's a little bit dated now, as it doesn't have some of the current players like intelligent design, the Discovery Institute and William Dembski, etc., nor another important voice, Denis Lamoureux. But it certainly is useful, if not essential, background for how the conversation got to where it is now.
0 -
I would highly recommend John Clayton, former atheist and now retired science teacher. I've heard him speak a number of times and have most of his material.
0 -
I'd point you also to John Walton, who provides a great approach to the issue but he himself admits he is not educated in the physical sciences. - even so, his material can not be ignored.
And Ron Numbers book provides a background history of the issues - worthwhile.
A simple primer to the debates, and one that directly confronts divisive issues in a polite manner is 'Origins, Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design' by Deborah and Loren Haarsma.
Another perspective (that of progressive creationism) is provided by physicist Hugh Ross; many of his books are offered by FaithLife.
Most, if not all of the problems we encounter in the debate with science and theology lie with improper hermeneutics - one of my favorites and one that approaches the creation/evolution debates tangentially is Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation . In it, Vern S. Poythress contributes a wonderful essay called, "Science and Hermeneutics" - the whole book is foundational to the topic and will not disappoint you.
I was introduced to the issue through Bernard Ramm's book, A Christian View of Science and Scripture (1956), quite dated but still a favorite of mine.
0 -
I've followed the discussion actively for about a decade. Walton is taking it in a really good direction, so he's a good one to read. Many other evangelical scholars are working on it too.
The best synthesis I've heard so far comes from Denis O. Lamoureux. This guy earned two PhDs for the express purpose of working on the creation/evolution problem. One in biology and the other in theology. The man is dedicated!It's called "Evolutionary Creation". The book is pricey, but very much worth it. He has many articles and videos online outlining his positions too, if you'd rather check those out first.0 -
Greg Masone said:
This guy earned two PhDs for the express purpose of working on the creation/evolution problem. One in biology and the other in theology. The man is dedicated!
I Googled him and saw on Wikipedia (which we all know is ALWAYS reliable [*-)]) that he also had a doctoral degree in dentistry. Have to agree that qualifies him as dedicated!
0 -
For a broad perspective:
- Tielhard de Chardin
- John Haught
- Ilio Delio
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
If you want to see an Old Earth Creationist model (ie they accept Big Bang cosmology, etc but don't accept large scale evolution) then you might want to check out Logos material from Reason to Believe:
https://www.logos.com/product/28101/reasons-to-believe-collection
I actually lean more towards C John Collins approach:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-1-4-Linguistic-Theological-Commentary/dp/0875526195
http://www.amazon.com/Did-Adam-Eve-Really-Exist/dp/1433524252
Note: My scientific background is in Mathematics, so whilst I did study Microbiology and Organic Chemistry at Uni, I don't claim any expertise when it comes to the Biological Sciences.
Pastor Glenn Crouch
St Paul's Lutheran Church
Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia0 -
One more. I'm not Evangelical, but I found this (Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Discussion) to be a pretty fantastic discussion, with participants across the spectrum. John Walton, Averbeck, Collins, Longmann, and Beall.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected."- G.K. Chesterton
0 -
Ben said:
I'd suggest John Walton's books on Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, but only the Eerdman's volume is available alone. The other is The Lost World of Genesis 1, available only in an IVP package. https://www.logos.com/product/40906/ivp-old-testament-studies-collection
Also not in Logos, Mark S. Smith's book on Genesis 1.
Active link https://www.logos.com/product/40906C/ivp-old-testament-studies-collection
Also you might be interested in Three Views on Creation and Evolution either at amazon separately - Three Views on Creation and Evolution or as part of the Zondervan Counterpoints Upgrade collection on prepub here - https://www.logos.com/product/50304/zondervan-counterpoints-series-upgrade-ii#009
0 -
Matthew said:
I Googled him and saw on Wikipedia (which we all know is ALWAYS reliable
) that he also had a doctoral degree in dentistry. Have to agree that qualifies him as dedicated! Actually, if I remember correctly, a good part of his research for his PhD in biology focused on the evolutionary development of teeth in animals.
But yeah, he does have a Phd in dentistry too. So three doctorates!
Usually in my readings I'd find a theologian that knew his stuff...but messed up the science badly. Other times, you get scientists that really know their science...but suck at theology. Lamoureux is a huge exception to this, and it certainly shows in the knowledge and synthesis he brings to the table. I can not recommend this book highly enough for anyone interested in this subject. His discussion of the ancient near eastern worldview within Genesis 1-11 is a close second, if not equal to, John Walton's.
Here are a few lectures he's given on the subject that can be listened to online: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/wl.html
They broadly follow his 500 page book.
0 -
Greg Masone said:
Usually in my readings I'd find a theologian that knew his stuff...but messed up the science badly. Other times, you get scientists that really know their science...but suck at theology.
The link I posted above has articles in Journals that deal with both subjects. For theological articles on Genesis you have to look at Andrews University Seminary Studies. Few Seminaries study the matter of creation like Seventh-day Adventist. Auss.info Run a search on your library for this Journal.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
Andrews University Seminary Studies may be coming to Logos. https://community.logos.com/forums/p/104156/722026.aspx#722026
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
As succinctly as I can put it, you might also consider the possibility that YHWH doesn't expect or want you to waste time on a subject He didn't give any command to examine. The whole subject might be a deliberate red herring.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Best book from a scientific point of view, however, neither (yet) available in English, nor on Logos...
http://www.evolutionslehrbuch.info
David Paul said:waste time on a subject He didn't give any command to examine.
He neither commanded to use Bible software, and still it's worthwhile.
0 -
Thank you so very much for all the suggestions. As I consider John Walton, for instance, I am concerned (rightly or wrongly) that his approach is too centered exclusively on Genesis. I cannot find any theory about the meaning of Genesis satisfactory that does not account for how it is understood and handled in other parts of Scriptures. For instance, if someone would say that the Flood is some sort of metaphorical tale, they would need to explain how that works when Jesus compares judgment day to the days of the Flood. The same applies to when Paul makes an exhortative point out of Eve being deceived, not Adam, etc.
What I have encountered in my admittedly limited readership on the topic is either topical treatments that defend the traditional reading of the Genesis account throughout the Bible but do not deal well, if at all, with the challenges that come from the scientific community's claims about the age of the earth and of fossils. Or there are those who talk all about Genesis and the challenges but are largely mum about the rest of the Bible.
So, in all the books mentioned above, is there one or more that does both well? How do Walton and Lamoureux fare with regard to these questions?
0 -
HI MJ and Francis!
MJ. Smith said:If you wish to discuss the truth or falsity of the AIG position, take it to ChristianDiscourse.
Normally I would totally agree - although in this case the comments made are here and need at least some sort of challenge - Here!
the best I can say about them are they a caricature of the AIG position - or instead they are defamatory. If "any" of these opinions have been expressed by individuals in their publications they are NOT the views of AIG as a whole.
The only redeeming factor is the use of "Answers in Genesis books type" - as such I can just about support the "TYPE" element - but we should object to the highly fringe material being associated with a group that is far less "fringe" than the assigned views would suggest.
Shalom Kevin
0 -
I am very confused by your request. You want
Francis said:intelligent, careful exegesis of the pertinent biblical material that is made to relate to the questions raised by evolutionists and willing to admit, when applicable, what we don't know or can't settle. I want something informed, informative, sensible and solid exegetically.
But you want it to be non-dogmatic
Francis said:I don't want the same from a creationist standpoint.
and not scientifically elaborate
Francis said:I am not interested in elaborate "scientific" arguments such as the cosmological constant.
I don't believe you will find a resource that fits your requirements.however, if you do find one that is UP TO-DATE SCIENTIFICALLY please share it.
0 -
Kevin, I can no longer edit my original post, otherwise I would remove the allusion to AIG. My impressions were based on readings I did quite a while ago and could indeed not be fair to the ministry as it exists today. I was not trying to take a shot at AIG (although I admit that the way I wrote does just that), but to dismiss suggestions of books along the dinosaur skeletons are cows-bones glued together type. So please ignore what I wrote about AIG and retain the type of content criteria.
Kent, I am not sure what you find confusing. I think that dogmatic/non-dogmatic is not a category that expresses best my criteria. I want solid exegesis not confessionally-conditioned eisegesis. And when I say confessional, this is not to disparage confessionalism, since I am a believer myself. But as I said, I don't want Job's friends type of answers. The question at hand is how the way the Bible represents creation is to be understood (e.g., is Walton's ancient cosmology model working at the scale of the entire Bible?). There are many passages of Scriptures that have a long tradition of interpretation that is sometimes mistakenly held to be the straight-forward and thus least suspect way of reading them. They are, often, simply a long tradition of a Westernisation of the Scriptures that has read them according to our culture, conventions and expectations (what we find "self-evident") rather than on their own terms. The challenges brought by scientific discoveries can provide the impetus to consider whether traditional interpretation is as canonical as it has been made to be. Hence, I am more interested in the interpretation of the Biblical material than in, say, ID types of arguments. Is this clearer to you?
You may be right that this resource does not exist. I don't know, that's why I am asking.
0 -
Kevin A Lewis said:
HI MJ and Francis!
MJ. Smith said:If you wish to discuss the truth or falsity of the AIG position, take it to ChristianDiscourse.
Normally I would totally agree - although in this case the comments made are here and need at least some sort of challenge - Here!
the best I can say about them are they a caricature of the AIG position - or instead they are defamatory. If "any" of these opinions have been expressed by individuals in their publications they are NOT the views of AIG as a whole.
The only redeeming factor is the use of "Answers in Genesis books type" - as such I can just about support the "TYPE" element - but we should object to the highly fringe material being associated with a group that is far less "fringe" than the assigned views would suggest.
Shalom Kevin
I present this article concerning the existence of fire breathing dragons living with humans as recent as medieval times as evidence of Francis' concerns.
I also highly recommend The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (or anything else by Walton).
Also helpful:
Four Views on the Historical Adam (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate (This one is new).
Video of John Walton's view here.
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
Joseph Turner said:
I present this article concerning the existence of fire breathing dragons living with humans as recent as medieval times as evidence of the Francis' concerns.
Hi Joseph
Reasonable point - but not quite in the category of the Original Post's issues. Also worth saying that The Bible itself includes subject matter that many would lump together with this and then label Myth (i.e. untrue). The fire breathing element of Dinosaur or Dragon would be difficult at this time to prove or for that matter disprove, based on current fossil evidence.
As Francis has said above - and his point was well made - would have been far better made had AIG be left off the post. They I would have both understood and agreed wholeheartedly.
Back to the original enquiry - I am also concerned that the request for information - has left little room for relevant material to be offered.
Shalom Kevin
0 -
MJ,MJ. Smith said:Travis Walter said:If thats what you really think about AIG, then I challenge you to actually read and watch some of their programs.
Saying what you said about them is simply not true.
Travis, don't assume Francis doesn't know the AIG material; rather, remember that this is not the place to discuss theology and therefore not the place to label what the OP posted as "not true" except, perhaps, on a factual point such as correcting a year, title or author reference. If you wish to discuss the truth or falsity of the AIG position, take it to ChristianDiscourse.
Note: I have read their material as my father was at one time a supporter but became a strong critic.
To correct Travis on his beliefs is indeed discussing what should not be done here. The OP is inflammatory to those who value AIG's work.
0 -
Francis, since you want to steer between the views which you describe as “all dating methods are totally unreliable” and “I don't want pragmatic, uncritical exegesis”, checkout publications from Hugh Ross’s Reasons To Believe (RTB).
The reason Ross represents a middle ground, is that he holds to a substantial form of inerrancy See Q8, while only challenging a limited number of theories of Science. This is a significant contrast to authors that might be associated with AIG or Biologos views.
Many RTB publications are available through Logos, but you should also peruse the Reasons website to see which publications best address the questions you may have, i.e., physical science, life science, or the biblical text.
A few suggestions:
- For the most discussion of the Bible, look at “Navigating Genesis” and “Hidden Treasures in the Book of Job”. Ross also recommends C. John Collin’s Genesis 1-4 commentary.
- On age of the Earth, “A Matter of Days”, the 2015 edition is now available but I have not seen it.
- For general coverage the old title “Finger Print of God” is still relevant. Hugh Ross also has helpful videos on you tube.
Francis said:How do Walton and Lamoureux fare with regard to these questions?
Lamoureux said in a youtube video he has given up on the bible being reliable, and "grieves the loss".
0 -
As far as exegesis is concerned...that is really difficult to answer since so many resources do in fact touch on it, but virtually none in Logos have it as its main focus. For example the NIV Application Commentary (by Walton) on Genesis...but also WBC on Genesis and various others would also touch on the interplay of science and theology. The IVP Reference Dictionaries, Old Testament theologies (Waltke, Goldingay etc) are also good things to look at.
But, as far as your first request for a quality book "to give an overview of where the discussion is at." That I may be able to help you with. Actually I would recommend two books in addition to the one's already mentioned (I loved Number's historical book on "The Creationists").
Both survey creationists, intelligent designists, and evolutionists and combined I think you will get a really good picture of where the discussion is and also who some of the key players are.
The Adam Quest by Tim Stafford
This is from a reviewer
"Stafford, who is Senior Writer for Christianity Today, provides a snapshot of 11 different scientists whose work converges on one of 3 different Christian beliefs about evolution and creation: young earth creation, intelligent design, and evolutionary creation. The scientists disagree with each other on how life developed, but all hold firm to the belief in God as creator. You won't find an in-depth explanation of the scientific work involved, but you will get the flavor of their research and questions. That's the value of this book."
The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories Thomas Fowler and Daniel Kuebler
I enjoyed both books ("The Adam Quest" is by far a quicker read...and I enjoyed it so much I finished it in just a weekend.)
0 -
Everett Headley said:
MJ,MJ. Smith said:Travis Walter said:If thats what you really think about AIG, then I challenge you to actually read and watch some of their programs.
Saying what you said about them is simply not true.
Travis, don't assume Francis doesn't know the AIG material; rather, remember that this is not the place to discuss theology and therefore not the place to label what the OP posted as "not true" except, perhaps, on a factual point such as correcting a year, title or author reference. If you wish to discuss the truth or falsity of the AIG position, take it to ChristianDiscourse.
Note: I have read their material as my father was at one time a supporter but became a strong critic.
To correct Travis on his beliefs is indeed discussing what should not be done here. The OP is inflammatory to those who value AIG's work.
Sorry, I did not read the OP as inflammatory but rather read Kevin as unnecessarily defensive. However, Francis has conceded that he would edit his post if he could so that should be the end of it. From my personal perspective the whole discussion is based on a misunderstanding of abductive logic - the logical basis of science.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Francis,I was able to find my notes of 5 years ago, including links to videos, where Part 1 at 8 minutes Lamoureux said “I am an inerrantist of the highest order”. Unfortunately, that’s the opposite of what I remember. I apologize for not checking this before posting.
Apparently, I formed my position after listening to the following statements in the next video : at 5:45 min:sec, Lamoureux said “I have been grieving a good portion of my professional life dealing with this.” At 8:20 Sin did not enter the World through Adam. At 9:20 Lamoureux thinks a Skeptic’s question is reasonable: If the bible gets it wrong scientifically and historically, why should I trust it’s theological message? These statements seem inconsistent with inerrancy, but I missed the point he sees himself as “an inerrantist” and I misrepresented that. I’m sorry for the distraction.
0 -
Francis said:
So, in all the books mentioned above, is there one or more that does both well? How do Walton and Lamoureux fare with regard to these questions?
Francis,
Again, I think Lamoureux provides the best perspective on this issue. I read the book I suggested to you back in 2008 or 2009 (and I still own it), so my memory is a bit fuzzy, but browsing through its chapters I see a great deal of discussion on Genesis 1-11, and then a chapter devoted to the Christian perspective on it, namely, what are we to do with Jesus and Paul's uses of Genesis 1-11 in light of what was previously discussed about those chapters?
So I think it would provide as good a discussion as one could hope on those issues. You might, if you have the time, check out the links to his lectures and presentations that I gave you to get a taste of his book.
You may want to play around with the website Biologos.org too. Its a great site for Christians to explore these issues, and features numerous contributions from Lamoureux, Walton, Wright, and various other Christians, both theologians and scientists. It is pro-evolution (which is the only legitimate position a person can have these days), and its mission is devoted to understanding our faith within that context.
0 -
Greg Masone said:
It is pro-evolution (which is the only legitimate position a person can have these days),
Hmm....That is one way of stifling the debate.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Scott S said:
These statements seem inconsistent with inerrancy, but I missed the point he sees himself as “an inerrantist” and I misrepresented that. I’m sorry for the distraction.
The thing with inerrancy is where one grounds his perspective on it. If I claimed I believed in inerrancy of scripture, yet used the knowledge and truth standards of a 21st century person to "judge" the text by, I wouldn't hold to inerrancy for very long because, in many ways, the scriptures wouldn't hold up to my standards simply because it wasn't written with my standards in mind.
When thinking about inerrancy, we have to judge scripture by the author's standards. Not our own. This is why I can say I am an inerrantist, yet fully accept the biological evolution of all life on earth AND say that the science in the Bible does not concord with the science I currently believe. This is very similar to what Lamoureux says too.
How can I say this, and still believe in inerrancy? Because when I judge scripture according to the standards of the Ancient Near East, it passes with flying colors. The cosmology present in Genesis 1-11 fits perfectly into its milieu. But it doesn't have hidden scientific knowledge so as to satisfy the minds of 21st century Americans. When I judge John's writings according to the standards of the 1st century, he does much better then if I were to hold him to 21st century standards.
So with inerrancy, we have to use the standards of the authors to "judge" the text, or else we add a whole host of criteria that the authors, even though they were divinely inspired, weren't privy to. But if we still insist, the question must be asked "why these 21st century standards, and not 16th century ones?" If we are willing to judge the text by the science of the 21st century, then we must also be willing to do it by the science of every century before us, and every century after us. You can see the headache this would cause, and the potential damage it could do too. What if we find great scientific support in scripture for some new theory, but 200 years later that theory is decisively discarded? Would scripture be wrong then?
No. Better to ground our inerrancy in the period the scriptures were written, so the standard doesn't change with each successive generation of Christians.
0 -
Super.Tramp said:
Hmm....That is one way of stifling the debate.
In light of the evidence, this is true. Now, would we not say the same on the question of the movement of the earth? Is there any legitimate debate within Christendom on whether the earth moves? How many of us would invest serious study in this question? And yet, I bet none of us could walk outside our house right now and definitively prove how geocentrism is false.
Evolution isn't going anywhere because it is true. I call it a legitimate position because it isn't science that drives antievolutionists in their rejection of the theory. Religious truths (little t) are held and insisted upon, and "science" is gathered afterward to bolster the religious truths. I'm not aware of any atheists who outright reject evolution for young-earth creationism, or even some non-evolutiontary position. There is always religion involved in the rejection equation.
0 -
http://www.discovery.org/id/books/
With special mention of Behe, Dembski, Woodward, Meyers and Johnson. The rest may also be good, but those were the ones I've read.
NOTE: this comes from the Intelligent Design perspective. They seek to be more scientific than the answers in genesis folks, and have erected a big tent that allows catholics, protestants, and any one else that believes there is a creator God to participate. This has caused some criticism from both sides... But I do think they have a more solid grasp of the issues and science than many groups. The Christians in their number have written some good books from a theological perspective as well. Behe is a catholic - and even as a protestant I would start with him. Dembski IIRC is deist, Woodward is a Christian and graduate of Princeton. Johnson is also a Believer - but was/is an attorney and Berkley professor IIRC. I don't remember where Meyer stood theologically.L2 lvl4 (...) WORDsearch, all the way through L10,
0 -
Greg Masone said:Super.Tramp said:
Hmm....That is one way of stifling the debate.
In light of the evidence, this is true. Now, would we not say the same on the question of the movement of the earth? Is there any legitimate debate within Christendom on whether the earth moves? How many of us would invest serious study in this question? And yet, I bet none of us could walk outside our house right now and definitively prove how geocentrism is false.
Evolution isn't going anywhere because it is true. I call it a legitimate position because it isn't science that drives antievolutionists in their rejection of the theory. Religious truths (little t) are held and insisted upon, and "science" is gathered afterward to bolster the religious truths. I'm not aware of any atheists who outright reject evolution for young-earth creationism, or even some non-evolutiontary position. There is always religion involved in the rejection equation.
Greg,
This IS a debatable topic and one in which many do not agree with you on. The OP was suggestions for resources, not for opinions offered on what is or is not legitimate. That is for each of us to decide. Please take this to christiandiscourse.com if you want to debate this.
0 -
Jan Krohn said:David Paul said:
waste time on a subject He didn't give any command to examine.
He neither commanded to use Bible software, and still it's worthwhile.
Really?? You equate using a tool to do what He said to do with engaging in a practice purportedly related to Him but upon which He never spoke?
Your equivalency detector needs some tuning.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:Jan Krohn said:David Paul said:
waste time on a subject He didn't give any command to examine.
He neither commanded to use Bible software, and still it's worthwhile.
Really?? You equate using a tool to do what He said to do with engaging in a practice purportedly related to Him but upon which He never spoke?
Your equivalency detector needs some tuning.
It seems to me that discussions of the merits of studying things like the origins of the universe both likely belongs at ChristianDiscourse and does not belong here.
“The trouble is that everyone talks about reforming others and no one thinks about reforming himself.” St. Peter of Alcántara
0 -
I do not own this but it looks interesting https://www.logos.com/product/4055/day-one-creation-and-science-collection
0 -
I sat in John Lennox's class on Science and Religion last year and found it very helpful. He is a mathemetician and apologist and so draws on a lot of experts in their fields in what he writes when out of his own area of expertise. Very thoughtful, gracious and clear.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953034
0 -
I took a class on Science & Belief from the Copernicans to the Creationists taught by Mark Noll and David Livingstone. The main textbook for the class was this:
Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives by John Hedley Brooke (Cambridge University Press, 2014) - this is a newer edition than the one I have in print
Not available in Logos/Vyrso, but the Kindle price is a bargain for this scholarly work of 576 pages. Less than 1/2 the paperback price.
0 -
I have the "Day One Creation ..." collection, and the "Reasons to Believe etc" (Hugh Ross and others) collections, and a few other assorted titles in Logos. Sadly I've not read so very much of any of them for some time, so hard to give any real feedback on their merits and positions.
Like all such matters: if its pressing on your mind and keeps you awake, read a range of books and authors on both "sides" and play them off. Don't just read a single author and consider the job done. That never works for me.
I still don't always know how to get my faith and my science to play nice at times, but I trust God knows how it all works out, so that gets me by even when I know I don't know!
Regards,
Jim.
(P.S. If you have a few specific questions, I'm happy to see what of those titles I have might address it and give you some comments. What I wont do is start any wars here. I have no interest in that and will walk away if one breaks out.)
0 -
Consider making a new Collection and put the following in the rule:
mytag:Creation OR tag:Creation OR tag:Science OR tag:Creationism OR tag:Evolution
The "mytag" is where I have set that in the "My Tags" field for any title. The "tag" is I think picking up what others have done. It seems to work anyway. I'm getting about 100 titles including all those from the "Day One ..." and "Reasons to Believe" etc collections as above.
Of course you only see what you actually have in your library, and not all will be a good fit to the original post.
Then of course there is the many Commentaries you might have for Genesis. Some will try and address the various viewpoints around the early creation. Lots of discussions on what "Bara" and "Ex Nihilo" means and so on ...
I think if I was to only read my 100 books and all Gen 1 Commentaries, its going to take about as long as since Creation to now. That's either 6,000 years or 13.5 Billion. I wont be sure until I finish reading [:S]
0 -
Here is another one that might be on interest. https://www.logos.com/product/30992/faith-reason-and-earth-history-2nd-ed
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0
