I am finishing up a 2nd reading of Philip E. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." I read it quite a few years ago, but not very thoroughly. This time I understood a lot more of the elaborate vocabulary. It's a fairly unique book. It's really an examination of the leaps in logic and fallacies committed by darwinian theorists. It's even-handed in that it isn't saying the theory is impossible, only that it isn't being demonstrated by the evidence. I enjoy reading books by people that come from different perspectives that I do. Johnson is part of the Intelligent Design Movement whereas I am still most convinced, surprisingly to some, by Young Earth Creationism. Nevertheless, I am content to be in the minority when my best thinking leads me that direction (partial preterism, amillennialism, young earth creationism, etc). Good read.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Darwin on Trial
I am finishing up a 2nd reading of Philip E. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." I read it quite a few years ago, but not very thoroughly. This time I understood a lot more of the elaborate vocabulary. It's a fairly unique book. It's really an examination of the leaps in logic and fallacies committed by darwinian theorists. It's even-handed in that it isn't saying the theory is impossible, only that it isn't being demonstrated by the evidence. I enjoy reading books by people that come from different perspectives that I do. Johnson is part of the Intelligent Design Movement whereas I am still most convinced, surprisingly to some, by Young Earth Creationism. Nevertheless, I am content to be in the minority when my best thinking leads me that direction (partial preterism, amillennialism, young earth creationism, etc). Good read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
¿Young Earth? ¿Really? ¿Have any suggested reading on the topic?
Actually, most of the books I read on the subject are by old earth (intelligent design guys), but I'm also a regular reader of answersingenesis.com
I suppose the major reason I remain a young earther is simply that I think they make a more honest interpretation of Genesis coupled with the fact that I have a friend who is a highly educated geologist who i've had many conversations with regarding the popular doctrine of uniformitarianism.
To make a complicated story overly simple, scientists arrive at the dates they get mostly b/c they believe that current processes must account for what we observe. erosion, for instance, is a very slow process. If it is singularly responsible for the grand canyon, that would take millions and millions of years.
but if there was a worldwide flood, THAT can explain the ravaged geology that we observe. It's really a question of whether we account for current topography by a long and gradual process or a catastrophic event.
since popular science rejects the account of a worldwide flood, they assume uniformitarianism. The top layer is, let's say, 50,000 years old. the next layer is a million, the bottom layer is 60 million, etc (just playing with the numbers). Thereore, they say, any fossil they find in a various layer takes the age of that layer.
A believer of a worldwide flood, however, believes the vast majority of fossils are from the 1 catastropic event, a reminder, from God of the judgment.
I also find the young-earth theory most compelling - and I think it all comes down to authority. I work with scientists/engineers every day, many with advanced degrees, and they make mistakes and are prone to error, as they a re human. You either choose to trust in human authority (with is by default, faulty!), or God. Thank you for the words!
Post a Comment