apologetics - science

Are there any apologetic titles on science that is trustable? I noticed "The Genesis Question" in the Logos March Madness and wondering if it is good.

I found that there is a product guide on this: http://www.logos.com/creation

Which one is more trustable?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TCBlack

I'm assuming you mean, which of the titles on the creation page are more trustable?

That answer is going to depend on whether you are a 6x24 creationist as I am, or if you prefer other points of view. Compound that with whether or not you happen to like or dislike one of those authors and various people are going to take these two variables and answer your question accordingly.

That said, I think regardless of your positions - all o the books mentioned will add something useful to the debate. In the authors you agree with you will find point and counterpoint arguments, in the authors you patently disagree with you will find points you should ponder before you become dogmatic.

William

I personally do not care for Hugh Ross and his "Creation" if you can even say it is creation. He allows for Millions of years. God is just a fire starter. I have downloaded the Day one Creation set. I have not had a chance to really get into those books yet.

There is a resource by Henry Morris , The Genesis Record. I believe it is just a commentary on Genesis. He is a big man in ICR Institute for Creation Research. As far as I am concerned I really like their books. The problem....they are not available in Logos [:(]

Scott S

Hugh Ross does not hold that "God is just a fire starter."

Hugh Ross argues that known physical processes alone cannot
account for life. Intervention by a
designer is required. See "testable
creation research model" at reasons.org

The
Genesis Record is available in Logos.
It is an excellent commentary on Genesis from a young Earth perspective. The author is no longer at ICR. He is deceased.

Edited.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109136#Comment_109136

Intervention by a
designer is required.

and the allowance of millions of years is nothing more than a fire starter maybe a guider....certainly not creator

but I have just broken the rules. I am just so tired of the placation to evolutionists..

It takes a million times more "faith" for evolution.

Sorry , I knew Morris's book was there. I was just thinking about all the others

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109146#Comment_109146

Interesting. What I mean trustable is that it is scientifically accurate and biblically accurate at the same time. So, the author should be a professional scientist and one who is professional in the Bible. Hugh Ross seems to be a professional scientist but I don't know if he is good at the Bible.

I know these two requirements are very tough. Well, a compromise is a co-author book that one of the author are professional in one of them.

Are there such book(s)?

And what is a fire starter, guider, creator? What is the differences?

By the way, as a physicist, I will say that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old, errors are there but it definitely won't be several hundred times. Of course one can argue that a certain initial condition is given at a certain time and with this initial condition it looks exactly like 14 billion years old, but it is philosophical but not scientific. It could be, but scientists cannot tell and only God knows.

What I believe in is what the Bible says, and what the Nature says, and the two cannot disagree with each other, since the Nature is created by God through His word. So what we want to find out is a theory that can fit both the requirements. Just like you cannot sacrifice the truth from Revelation when you are talking about Romans, you cannot sacrifice Science when you are talking about the Bible, vice versa. To be precise, Science as what we understand can be wrong, but the Nature never goes wrong. Science needed to be modified when it is not consistent with the Nature and/or Bible, and the interpretation of the Bible needed to be modified when it is not consistent with the Nature and/or Bible too.

Well, it seems that it is an excellent research area to do with.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109161#Comment_109161

the author should be a professional scientist and one who is professional in the Bible.

The bible is not a science book. There are many good science books. I personally go at the biochemistry type book. I can read and study the processes and know about them. When did they start functioning in this way or that....is scripture. To interpret that a metamorphic rock must be 5 million years old because it is formed by heat and pressure over time is wrong. God spoke and it was. I would go to books from ICR and past that just science books. Given the status of God in science and a majority of all humans, I would just expect to see stuff that is not biblical but is science.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109236#Comment_109236

The bible is not a science book.

Correct, that's the basic assumption of the topic.

To interpret that a metamorphic rock must be 5 million years old because it is formed by heat and pressure over time is wrong.

I personally go at the biochemistry type book.

Right, by that argument you only know Chemistry. And if it is wrong or not, I don't dare to say.

God spoke and it was.

Do we truly understand how God speak then?

We need to be humble on this subject. I believe God created the Nature through the Word, which is in the Bible. But how? we need to be humble. I personally don't think Moses even understand it fully, and of course not me, not any one of us.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109146#Comment_109146

I am just so tired of the placation to evolutionists

You
have picked-up inaccurate information about Hugh Ross. He is not an "evolutionist". From his website http://www.reasons.org/evolution-mythology-part-1-5-theory-evolution-myth

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109161#Comment_109161

Hugh Ross seems to be a professional scientist but I don't know if he is good at the Bible.

Hugh Ross consults with those that are good at the Bible. He also consults with Life Science specialists when writing on evolution. All this is footnoted in his books.

Two links you might find interesting:

http://www.reasons.org/notable-christians-open-old-universe-old-earth-perspective

A presentation by Hugh Ross

I think TC Black's post above is a good approach:

"That said, I think regardless of your positions - all o
the books mentioned will add something useful to the debate. In the
authors you agree with you will find point and counterpoint arguments, in the
authors you patently disagree with you will find points you should ponder
before you become dogmatic."

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109394#Comment_109394

Hugh Ross consults with those that are good at the Bible. He also consults with Life Science specialists when writing on evolution. All this is footnoted in his books.

Then it seems good to start with him. You have read his books, right? What do you think about it?

all o
the books mentioned will add something useful to the debate.

Right, but I can't read all of them... Do you have a good one to start with?

By the way, I like the words in the link you quote:

"The following individuals—respected authors, Bible scholars,
scientists, pastors, linguists, and more—hold to a diversity of views on
the timing of God’s creation. And yet all have affirmed, in documented
sources, that an ancient universe and Earth (including big bang
cosmology) pose no threat to Christian orthodoxy, but rather may be
considered plausible and valid interpretations, even literal
interpretations, of the biblical text. Not one sees the question of age
as a crucial doctrinal issue."

May be I should really start with him.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109371#Comment_109371

He is not an "evolutionist".

also in wiki:

Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer
and astrophysicist, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of
Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts
the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, and he rejects evolution
and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and
origin of life.^[1]

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109415#Comment_109415

By the way, I am completely shocked! It seems to be very coincidental that Dr. Hugh Ross is a physicist, christian, and born on the 24/7, which is exactly the same as me!

Well, I need to buy his book definitely, and hope that I can be another "Hugh Ross". Well, it is exactly what I am interested in. I am actually seeking the Lord for my research interest, might be this helps.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109413#Comment_109413

Right, but I can't read all of them... Do you have a good one to start with?

The Creator and the Cosmos because he clearly demonstrates how modern scientific discoveries reveal more and more that there is a Designer/Creator, and rebuts some of the modern claims for "origin of life". As a scientist with a physics background I have to marvel how Ross intertwines the science with faith, showing the incredibly delicate balance of the necessities for life on Earth and that none of those necessities could come from a process of evolution.

And it was the first time that I really appreciated that an ancient universe and Earth could be consistent with the Bible account. 14 billion years is still a finite amount of time - - not nearly enough time for Evolution which needs infinite time!

Alex Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109568#Comment_109568

The Creator and the Cosmos because he clearly demonstrates how modern scientific discoveries reveal more and more that there is a Designer/Creator, and rebuts some of the modern claims for "origin of life". As a scientist with a physics background I have to marvel how Ross intertwines the science with faith, showing the incredibly delicate balance of the necessities for life on Earth and that none of those necessities could come from a process of evolution.

And it was the first time that I really appreciated that an ancient universe and Earth could be consistent with the Bible account. 14 billion years is still a finite amount of time - - not nearly enough time for Evolution which needs infinite time!

Right on Dave!

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109568#Comment_109568

As a scientist with a physics background I have to marvel how Ross intertwines the science with faith

Great to see that you are Physicist too! I actually know another brother who was a nuclear physicist and know the Bible really well, now being an elder to shepherd the Churches.

14 billion years is still a finite amount of time

Right, From what I heard in recent years, there seems to be a trend to believe the Big Bang theory (among Christian). In the past, preachers like to say that how come things can come with an explosion, where explosion cannot give you structure, so and so. But humble Christians start to realize that it is the first scientific evidence that there is a beginning of the Universe, which support the creation view.

By the way, how you guys comment on the "soul of science" in the base package?

Thanks.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109678#Comment_109678

By the way, what happened to these 3 books?

More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation
Why the Universe Is the Way It Is

Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the
Creation-Date Controversy

The first two seems to be newer so that it is not included in the Reasons To Believe Collection

How about the last one? Is that replaced by another title?

Thanks.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109371#Comment_109371

I am just so tired of the placation to evolutionists

You have picked-up inaccurate information about Hugh Ross. He is not an "evolutionist". From his website http://www.reasons.org/evolution-mythology-part-1-5-theory-evolution-myth

Hugh Ros is not an evolutionist. Ross does espouse that there was a first Creation that was spoiled and God started over with a second Creation. I have not read a lot of his books but I do have a big collection of his audio lectures. I think he has a lot of interesting things to say -some correct, some incorrect, but all of it plausible. I will be buying the Hugh Ross / Reasons to Believe Collection (9 vols.) http://www.logos.com/products/details/4249 but I reserve the right to disagree with him [:D]

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109161#Comment_109161

What I believe in is what the Bible says, and what the Nature says, and the two cannot disagree with each other, since the Nature is created by God through His word.

God is not bound by the laws of "Nature." He put them there for our benefit. Whenever the Bible appears to confilict with Nature, I give the Bible the benefit of credibility. Of course I usually discover I am misunderstanding the Bible, Nature, or both. Humility is one thing I am getting better at with age. The more I learn the less I know.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109707#Comment_109707

God is not bound by the laws of "Nature."

But he cannot betray himself, right? When something contrary to the Nature, we call it miracles. But God rarely do it. And for miracles, it is not scientific by its definition because it is not repeatable, not a rule/law. So what happens in the Nature, and what we measured (which is repeatable) are the one God is "bounded". Miracles are the one that God is not "bounded". And God can do both of them, but it seems that he prefers the bounded one unless sth gets wrong.

Whenever the Bible appears to confilict with Nature, I give the Bible the benefit of credibility.

True, but sad that people often give the credibility to their UNDERSTANDING of the Bible but not the Bible itself.

Of course I usually discover I am misunderstanding the Bible, Nature, or both.

Amen.

Humility is one thing I am getting better at with age. The more I learn the less I know.

I hope that I can be like you when I get older. It is kind of easy to be humble when one is young. But when we get older, we established our own world view, the positions, reputation, etc. that it can be difficult to be humble. I pray that I can be more and more humble as I grow, so that my mind is gradually renewed to His.

By the way, when I say

the Nature is created by God through His word

, there is an asymmetry in the argument so that the Word is in the first priority.

Ken Avery

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109091#Comment_109091

There is a resource by Henry Morris , The Genesis Record. I believe it is just a commentary on Genesis. He is a big man in ICR Institute for Creation Research. As far as I am concerned I really like their books. The problem....they are not available in Logos

Exactly!

Ken Avery

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109413#Comment_109413

Right, but I can't read all of them... Do you have a good one to start with?

Unfortunately, the book I would recommend is not in Logos: http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-Solving-Distant-Universe/dp/0890512027

As a physicist, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that all clocks in the universe run at the same speed, the universe is infinite, has no center and has no edge.

As a physicist, this puts me in the young earth camp using the same math as the old earth camp, just different initial conditions and assumptions.

EDIT: You can just watch the movie: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6056597607801951198#docid=-219318239210838224 [;)]

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109735#Comment_109735

There is a resource by Henry Morris , The Genesis Record.

http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/GENRECORD

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109746#Comment_109746

As a physicist, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that all clocks in the universe run at the same speed, the universe is infinite, has no center and has no edge.

Good to see another Physicist-Christian.

Thanks.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109091#Comment_109091

There is a resource by Henry Morris , The Genesis Record.

I understand that Hugh Ross actually cooperate with many others in different fields to draw conclusions. How about Henry Morris? Is that a "one man show"?

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109413#Comment_109413

all o
the books mentioned will add something useful to the debate.

Right, but I can't read all of them... Do you have a good one to start with?

I agree with Dave, The Creator and the Cosmos would be a good place to start.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109697#Comment_109697

Ross does espouse that there was a first Creation that was spoiled and God started over with a second Creation.

All Christians that believe in the Flood believe this. [:)]

However, I suspect you refer to the "Gap Theory". Ross argues against the Gap Theory in his
book, The Genesis Question, which is part of the March Madness sale and the Logos collection.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109746#Comment_109746

As a physicist, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that all clocks in the universe run at the same speed, the universe is infinite, has no center and has no edge.

Some of the physicists might not agree with you.

all clocks in the universe run at the same speed

General Relativity tells us that it is not true. How fast the "clock" runs depends on the curvature of the spacetime, which is determined by the mass distribution. Well, you might mean proper time, but that's by definition having a "constant speed".

Time is very tricky. It depends on the observer, too. Interestingly, the observer, God, see 1000 years as 1 day, vice versa.

the universe is infinite

Really? But we only see a finite visible Universe. For the invisible part, we can (almost) never draw any conclusion from that. e.g. The Universe might have a slightly positive curvature to allow a finite one. And of course for string theorists it is more likely to have an infinite Universe.

has no center and has no edge

I think all physicists will agree with that.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109568#Comment_109568

As a scientist with a physics background

Dave,
I knew you had a technical background from your many newsgroup and forum posts.
Interesting to see what it is. [:)]

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109819#Comment_109819

as a non-scientist, I grew up with ICR influence and recently have been reading Hugh Ross. Frankly, both sides, but in some ways, ICR more so, really annoy me, in how they deal with each other. It gets pretty snippy. Turns me off.

Now, as a person trying to figure things out, but who is not a physicist, not an astronomer, not much science in my bones at all, I have a hard time dealing with all the arguments and counter arguments that center around math. I remember reading on the Ken Hamm et al site where they lambasted Hugh Ross saying he didn't know how to calculate something properly. I have no way of being able to assess that. I certainly am not going to take their word for it. And I could not find Hugh Ross answering that particular charge anywhere.

What I would like is some objective side by side comparison. I realize "objectivity" might be hard to come by, but if someone could put out the various theories and calculations and biblical texts side by side to compare--that would be helpful. Any comparisons I see are usually brief and tilted heavily in favor of the one presenting his own view. Right now, I am leaning more toward Hugh Ross' argument, but frankly I don't really care. I care in the sense that I want truth, but I don't care in the sense that either view does not leave me with less of an appreciation of God, creation, incarnation, or renewal. It does not affect my belief in the resurrection etc. (let the firestorm of all you learned men begin. i know my little spouting off has little weight or worth.

FWIW, there is a Geo-Centric physicist who always frequents church conventions I attend, who hand out flyers and books on his theory. wild.

Ken Avery

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109816#Comment_109816

As a physicist, I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that all clocks in the universe run at the same speed, the universe is infinite, has no center and has no edge.

Some of the physicists might not agree with you.

all clocks in the universe run at the same speed

General Relativity tells us that it is not true. How fast the "clock" runs depends on the curvature of the spacetime, which is determined by the mass distribution. Well, you might mean proper time, but that's by definition having a "constant speed".

Time is very tricky. It depends on the observer, too. Interestingly, the observer, God, see 1000 years as 1 day, vice versa.

the universe is infinite

Really? But we only see a finite visible Universe. For the invisible part, we can (almost) never draw any conclusion from that. e.g. The Universe might have a slightly positive curvature to allow a finite one. And of course for string theorists it is more likely to have an infinite Universe.

has no center and has no edge

I think all physicists will agree with that.

LOL - sorry for the confusion (my sarcasm ); what I believe is that the universe is finite, has a center and an edge and clocks in the universe do not run at the same speed.

Watch the video and the young earth position will be very obvious: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6056597607801951198#docid=-219318239210838224

Dr Humphreys is the man [:D]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109819#Comment_109819

Dave,
I knew you had a technical background from your many newsgroup and forum posts.
Interesting to see what it is.

To complete that, it was my Mathematics background that got me into a career in IT. Physics has always been a passion.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109788#Comment_109788

Is that a "one man show"?

If 500 scientists convened to determine the origin of the universe and 499 of them were wrong. I'd rather hear from the one who is correct. Linus Pauling was the only scientist to individually win two Nobel Prizes. Frequently the elite are "one-man shows". (Louis Pasteur & handwashing to prevent infection.)

We don't need to give a hearing to a patently wrong "scientist." Some others are posting in this (increasingly off-topic) thread that at the table of dialogue we somehow owe an equally respectful seat for the unsubstantiated "facts" as we give to substantiated. For example: Who (besides God) has scientifically observed the end of the universe? We may be right on the money or way off base with our theories of origins but there is no way outside of Faith to settle on an answer. I enjoy reading the different theories and there have been an alarming number of contradictory theories offered in the last 100 years of "enlightenment."

I'm amazed (not really) the gullible public never commented on the glaring contradictions between Carl Sagan & Stephen J Gould. The various contradictory scientific theories are like the many contradictory theologies. If truth is absolute, then almost everybody is wrong.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109847#Comment_109847

If 500 scientists convened to determine the origin of the universe and 499 of them were wrong. I'd rather hear from the one who is correct. Linus Pauling was the only scientist to individually win two Nobel Prizes. Frequently the elite are "one-man shows". (Louis Pasteur & handwashing to prevent infection.)

Thanks. Seems that I should read that.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109841#Comment_109841

but frankly I don't really care. I care in the sense that I want truth, but I don't care in the sense that either view does not leave me with less of an appreciation of God, creation, incarnation, or renewal.

Actually true. There are many "theories" on interpreting the Bible too. What we focus should be the similarities but not the differences. All of us believe that the Bible is the Word of God and it should have a harmony with the Nature, and so do the Science which aim at describing it. So I don't think young Earth/Old Earth views, etc. are enemies of each other, just as the different ways of interpreting the Bible are not enemies of each other. They are helping each other to seek the truth and (hopefully) willing to accept it if they are wrong.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109841#Comment_109841

as a non-scientist, I grew up with ICR influence and recently have been reading Hugh Ross. Frankly, both sides, but in some ways, ICR more so, really annoy me, in how they deal with each other. It gets pretty snippy. Turns me off.

I too am a non-scientist and also grew up with ICR influence. Reading Ronald Numbers' The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design which is a well-researched and objective history of young earth creationism opened my eyes to a lot of what goes on behind the scenes in and between those groups. It is fair and non-judgmental, and Henry Morris himself gives it an approving blurb on the back cover. But it was one of the keys that unlocked to me a different perspective from what I grew up with. I still don't have it all figured out, but I'm less worried about that now than I used to be. I'm more inclined to let science be science and let Scripture speak of the who and why rather than the how. I also believe it is possible to be a Christian and a scientist and not have to come to the conclusion that the earth is young when faced with scientific evidence against that. I know plenty of scientists who do their science from a Christian worldview and yet are are overwhelmingly convinced of the earth's age and who don't find that threatening their trust in the Truth of God's Word. One of those friends is John Medina, a well-respected molecular biologist. As a non-scientist, I'm going to have to take other people's word for some of this stuff, and the Christians I know personally who lean towards the old earth viewpoint are much more reasonable people than the ones I know who push the other way. So that's where I fall.

The other big key in my journey to where I stand now was a class called "Christian Faith and Science: Scientific and theological ideas don’t clash" taught by John Medina and Earl Palmer (who was then senior pastor of my church). It is unfortunately not available online anymore, but can be ordered from the audio ministry catalogue of University Presbyterian Church.

Another key was hearing Denis Lamoureux (who has a DDS, an MDiv and PhDs in "interdisciplinary theology: science and religion" and in oral biology) tell the story of his journey from atheist to young earth creationist to evolutionary creationist who believes in intelligent design. He is the author of the book Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. I'd love to see that book in Logos. I haven't read it yet, though I've read other short things that Denis has produced and I trust that it is very good.

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109689#Comment_109689

By the way, what happened to these 3 books?

More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation
Why the Universe Is the Way It Is

Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the
Creation-Date Controversy

The first two seems to be newer so that it is not included in the Reasons To Believe Collection

How about the last one? Is that replaced by another title?

Creation and Time is only listed at Ross's website as available in Japanese. It is relatively old 1994. I suspect newer books are updated/refined. I remember buying a paper copy when it came out in the mid-90's . . .

I'm not familiar with the other two books. One looks like the latest work on their Testable model; the other appears to not be a polemic, but his take on mysteries of the faith. Ross's video makes the title look interesting.

Searching Ross's collection in Logos works really well. I jumped at the Logos collection because with the hard copies I would have a question or want to reference a point Ross made and I could not remember which book it was in, or where in the book, because it may have been years or a decade since i read the book cover to cover.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109847#Comment_109847

I'm amazed (not really) the gullible public never commented on the glaring contradictions between Carl Sagan & Stephen J Gould. The various contradictory scientific theories are like the many contradictory theologies. If truth is absolute, then almost everybody is wrong.

I shouldn't do this - leading you further off-topic. But wouldn't this discussion be improved by a definition of science and it's relationship to truth/Truth? I doubt that God has "scientifically observed" anything ... with the exception, perhaps, of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ. In my grandfather's time (born 1870) there was a legitimate battle going on as to the roles of science and religion respectively. By WWI this had played out philosophically to be a non-issue.

Now I will slap myself and give myself a gentle reminder of the purpose of Logos forums ... and wish that there were more philosophical works available in Logos to point to for basic epistemology, logic and metaphysics.

Kolen Cheung

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109857#Comment_109857

I doubt that God has "scientifically observed" anything ...

What do you mean? What is scientifically observation?

Darcy S. Van Horn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109857#Comment_109857

You could try the Works of Cornelius Van Til for thought-provoking works on both epistemology and metaphysics. http://www.logos.com/products/details/3993

Sorry, I forgot to quote the post to which I was replying. This was a response to M.J.

Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109862#Comment_109862

What do you mean? What is scientifically observation?

Who (besides God) has scientifically
observed the end of the universe?

I'll let Matthew handle this one.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109863#Comment_109863

Works of Cornelius Van Til for thought-provoking works on both epistemology and metaphysics.

You're correct that he is a theologian that deals with portions of epistemology/metaphysics quite thoughtfully. Thanks for reminding me.

Greg

Are there any apologetic titles on science that is trustable?

Kolen,

Frankly, and I know this will ruffle a lot of people's feathers here, but unless the author in question supports the common scientific consensus regarding an old earth, universe, and evolution, then the work simply isn't trustworthy. Its as simple as that. The last thing you need is someone deciding what science is right and wrong based on a particular interpretation of ancient scripture. That's not how science works, and who's to say their interpretation is even accurate?

I've been actively in on this debate for a decade now, and there is no stronger theory of biological origins then evolution currently available. Everything that creation "scientists" put out misrepresents, either intentionally or accidentally, both good science and scripture.

Hugh Ross, while he does well with science for the most part, ends up butchering scripture to force his views on the universe to fit into it. Young earth creationists, all of them in fact, butcher science to make it fit into their modern misreading of scripture. Both read their own modern presuppositions into scripture in an effort to have it conform to the non-controversial science that we all accept now (but didn't 500 years ago).

Both fail in their endeavor to understand our origins from a scientific and scriptural perspective. Scientific concordism, or the idea of trying to get scripture and modern science to agree in some way, is the wrong tree to be barking up. The very foundation of the entire movement is based off of flawed principles that seek to read their own meaning into scripture. Both young-earth creationists and progressive creationists (Hugh Ross) do this. This is why these viewpoints should be rejected.

Interesting. What I mean trustable is that it is scientifically
accurate and biblically accurate at the same time. So, the author should
be a professional scientist and one who is professional in the Bible.
Hugh Ross seems to be a professional scientist but I don't know if he is
good at the Bible.
I know these two requirements are very tough. Well, a compromise is a
co-author book that one of the author are professional in one of them.

Are there such book(s)?

Glad you asked! Denis O. Lamoureux’s book “Evolutionary
Creation” is one of the best ones I have read in the past ten years on this subject. For one, the author is uniquely qualified to be speaking on the subject. In addition to a PhD in Dentistry, he also has a PhD in Theology and one also in Evolutionary Biology. The latter two degrees were obtained with the express purpose of contributing to the creation/science debate. No other author that I am aware of has the necessary background or commitment to speak on this subject. Lamoureux is a born-again Evangelical Christian who is firmly committed to letting the Bible speak for itself, and in no way does he ever minimize the work of the Holy Spirit in scripture.

In a nutshell, the book explains how understanding the Bible through
its own ancient phenomenological worldview allows science and scripture
to co-exist peacefully, no matter what our modern science is saying. While the book isn't currently offered in Logos, it's still one of the best books out there that seeks to be honest with scripture and science. Search for his name on Youtube and you should be able to find some of
his presentations on the subject if you're not interested in buying his book. (The price is high though, but worth it. I may be willing to lend you my copy if you are interested).

I was once a young-earth creationist until I became familiar with the science under discussion. Once that occurred, the shallowness of the YEC position became very evident and I had to give it up simply because it didn't accurately represent God's natural revelation. I moved on to progressive creationism (read mostly Hugh Ross's stuff) because that position seemed to be more honest with the science, at least until you got to their arbitrary rejection of biological evolution. As evidence of this, if you ever get a chance to read into it, notice how Ross will forcefully reinterpret Genesis 1 so it fits his old earth and universe views (completely ignoring the ancient meaning of the chapter) but isn't willing to do the same interpretive gymnastics when it comes to biological evolution. Progressive creationism plays fast and loose with scripture, so I wouldn't be willing to place much on the view.

If you have the time, read carefully through the above views, but just don't stop there. If that's all you read, and if you have no scientific training, you probably won't be able to tell bad science from good. Read good books on the age of the earth and evolution too, ones hopefully written by Christians who actually believe the evidence. Reading a YEC or progressive creationists assessment of evolution doesn't count! If you have to read books written by secular authors, be careful you don't get their philosophical views mixed up with their scientific views. I can give you a list of these sorts of books at another time, if you like. Just let me know, or find me on Facebook.

Most of all, read Lamoureux's book. Make sure not to pass this one up. For one, the opening chapters give you the necessary foundation to even start exploring the creation/science debate. He smooths over a lot of rough areas that cause most of the confusion in the debate, and for that alone the book is worth its price. From there he goes through the first 11 chapters of Genesis looking at how they were understood by their original audience, something that has been largely missed by most people today. This is absolutely essential to EVERYTHING in the debate, because if you don't understand how the original audience understood scripture, you're interpretation will always be off. This is the fatal mistake young-earth and progressive creationists make. Their whole starting point is wrong, so everything after that will be too.

The rest of the book deals with various theological considerations that have to be addressed when looking at scripture from an evolutionary creationist perspective.

Hope this helps!

Greg

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109907#Comment_109907

Kolen,

Just found this one, and it seems to be a condensed version of "Evolutionary Creation". It seems a lot more affordable too.

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution By Denis O. Lamoureux.

The Amazon review of the book below seems to provide a good list of helpful books on the subject too, so if you're interested be sure to check it out.

-------------------------------------------------

Practical Guidance for Reconciling Evolution With Chrsitianity

By John Lang

This book is a condensed (184 pages vs. 493 pages) and much more
affordable version of Lamoureux's 2008 book, Evolutionary
Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. My detailed review of
that book is available at
http://www.douglasjacoby.com/view_article.php?ID=5948. Because it is
more concise, this new book is much more accessible to its target
audience; namely, conservative Christians who are wrestling with the
Creation/Evolution controversy. I believe it fills a much needed gap in
the popular literature aimed at the same audience. Specifically, I
believe it delivers the hermeneutical guidance that is lacking in most
of the other books addressing evolution from a Christian perspective.

I could personally relate to the "journey" that the author and many
other conservative Christians have made in wrestling with the
creation/evolution controversy. I abandoned the "young earth
creationist" position in the 1980's after observing evidence I
considered conclusive regarding the age of the earth and the universe.
For Christians who may still be pondering that issue, I believe The
Bible, Rocks and Time: Geological Evidence for the Age of the Earth
is probably the definitive text for reconciling scripture with an "Old
Earth" (4.5+/- billion years). For over twenty years, I embraced
"Progressive (Old Earth) Creationism". I did not consider evolution to
be compatible with the Christian faith. As a result, I never seriously
considered the possibility that secular authors might actually be right
about evolution. It was not until I read The
Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by
Francis Collins that I encountered what I considered to be conclusive
evidence for Common Descent. The fact that Collins was writing from a
Christian perspective made this realization somewhat less traumatic. I
read several other books by Christian authors such as Coming
to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology
by Darrel Falk, Random
Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator by Richard
Colling, etc. These only served to solidify the reality of evolution
in my mind. There have been a number of books like these that I believe
have been very helpful in demonstrating the evidence for evolution in a
manner that is sensitive to Christian concerns. Yet I don't believe
there are many books that practically guide conservative Christians as
to how they can reconcile acknowledgement of evolution with their
convictions about the message of the Bible. Gordon Glover's book, Beyond
the Firmament: Understanding Science and the Theology of Creation
provides an excellent start to this task, but even he acknowledges in
his review of Evolutionary Creation (see
http://www.blog.beyondthefirmament.com/2008/12/06/lamoureuxs-evolutionary-creation/) that Lamoureux takes the hermeneutical issue to a much deeper level.
In I
Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution , Lamoureux addresses the key
issues in a much more concise manner. The significance of this is that
he provides practical direction as to how conservative Christians can
retain their evangelical convictions while maintaining their integrity
with regard to the "Book of God's Works" (nature) and the "Book of God's
Words" (scripture). In view of the overwhelming evidence for
evolution, coupled with the relative scarcity of credible books
addressing the hermeneutical issues that are relevant to the
creation/evolution controversy, I consider this book to be a very
valuable resource for the conservative Christian community. I can't
recommend it highly enough!

-------------------------------------------------

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109735#Comment_109735

Is this discussion on creationism not way out of the forum rules?[;)] http://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx Hmmmm.....[:P]

Ted.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109917#Comment_109917

Is this discussion on creationism not way out of the forum rules?

Yes, it is. And for the long-term good of the forums and Logos it is good to point this out. I am always concerned on these theological debates (which I admit to being quit willing to join [:$]) will cause potential Logos supporters to shy away, assuming that Logos resources are theologically biased (as opposed to market driven).

Scott S

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109922#Comment_109922

Kolen,

Now you have the range of Christian views on creation, from theistic evolution to young earth, and book recommendations for each position. So now you can decide whether to be Denis O.
Lamoureux, Hugh Ross, or Henry Morris. [:)]

Regards,

Scott

Ken Avery

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109925#Comment_109925

Kolen,

Another option is: http://www.logos.com/products/details/3849

God bless you and keep you,

Ken

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109857#Comment_109857

I shouldn't do this - leading you further off-topic. But wouldn't this discussion be improved by a definition of science and it's relationship to truth/Truth? I doubt that God has "scientifically observed" anything ... with the exception, perhaps,

I shouldn't take the bait , either. [:P] But here goes ---
Is Science a good thing? (All you friends of science have to say "Yes" here.)
All good things come from God. (Bible says so.)
God is the Creator of Science. (Like how I snuck the "C" word into the equation?)
God sees everything (Bible says so.)
God , of necessity, must observe the Universe scientifically.

It is kinda like asking Budda for the Buddhist perspective on enlightenment and then arguing with whatever answer he gives.

[I know 'snuck' isn't going to be appreciated in this academic circle. And I fully expect to be slapped down by the more logical persons reading this thread....MJ?, Rosie? }

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109938#Comment_109938

It is kinda like asking Buddha for the Buddhist perspective on enlightenment and then arguing with whatever answer he gives.

Er .. ah... I hate to bring this up but your analogy doesn't hold up. I spent my graduate school years in the Buddhist studies section of Asian Language and Literature - admittedly focusing on the Southern rather than Northern schools. However, I'll stick to Western logic ... which I do have some arguments with.

1 Is science "good" in the Greco-Christian sense of Good-Truth-Beauty? I'm not at all sure it is.

2. All Good (Greco-Christian sense) comes from God ... then again everything comes from God

3. Did God create science? Not directly. God created humanity, gave it intelligence, which humans eventually used to create science. So the question becomes one of whether or not God allows for any action that is not predetermined. [Note extreme determinism is a hallmark of science.]

4. Scientific observation is usually described as comparing of results when certain variables are held constant while others are varied in a controlled manner through a series of repeatable experiment. If God is omniscient, of what use is scientific observation to him?

5. Is God's "seeing" an anthropomorphic image of God's omniscience or a literal "seeing" as in the conversion of light waves into chemical/electro-chemical signals into mental image?

6. John teaches that the LOGOS is good-truth-beauty, therefore this entire post was simply an (il)legal segue into the use of Logos 4 to resolve theological discussions which I could prove if only the diagramming tool was available in the current beta. Notice the nice use of deconstructionist elements in the preceding sentence. I recently ordered a post-modern book in Logos format which is further proof of my intention to stay within the rules.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/109987#Comment_109987

That's what I get for arguing a position I don't believe.
EDITED version: It is kinda like asking Matthew who his favorite musician is and then arguing with whatever answer he gives.

#1) I too question if "science" is "good." How can something "good" attempt to deny God?

#2) Ying/Yang - slipping into easten philosophy here. Does God also have a masculine side & a feminine side?

#3) My definition of science is not the colloquially accepted version. Natural order is good. Man's science is evil when it deviates from the natural order.

#4) Problem here is humans don't have the capacity to ensure any variable is constant. That "one-in-a-million" fluke is the one that will kill you.

#5) God isn't limited to anthropomorphic experience and He certainly is not excluded from it. Even from outside the Incarnation. God claims to have measured the universe with His hand.

#6) So we have come full-circle into agreement here: Many would benefit from the further expansion of Logos 4 resources and features. Diagramming tools, philosophical works, apologetics & theological tomes, and even personal notes will foster a deeper understanding or a deeper awe of our present circumstance.

See, I told you I'd get taken to the woodshed. [:'(]