Saturday, July 05, 2008


Dumbing Down

Uh, oh!

I'm one of those non-believers who thinks it is false to say that religion makes you stupid. I consider people such as Ken Miller, George Coyne, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and the like, as data points in favor of my view. Thus, I'm saddened to note a counterexample, as reported by The Banner of Truth, a British Christian site:

A noted evangelical, R C Sproul, has announced a conversion from having previously accepted the theory of evolution as valid science. He now accepts both the Biblical and scientific evidence that the world was created in 6 literal 24-hour days and possibly as recently as around 6,000 years ago.

Sproul (not to be confused with the former Episcopal bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong) is a well-known "moderate" evangelical who takes ... or took ... a much more intellectual approach to faith than the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The article notes that Sproul has now added "scientific" evidence of a young earth to his layman's guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith and quotes Sproul to the effect:

According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1 to 2. The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days.

The article goes on to quote Creationist Tas Walker, from Creation Ministries International (formerly the Australian office of Answers in Genesis, which broke away over financial differences with Ken Ham), as follows:

We have seen the disastrous effect of such timidity and compromise [in defending the literalness of Genesis 1 and 2] as the church has lost much support in the West. Why should people listen when they think the church has no answers in this scientific age? So it is particularly encouraging to see a scholar of the stature of R C Sproul prepared to take a stand on the Word of God as written - and defend it.

One has to wonder if Sproul will chose hermeneutical gymnastics or defense of the plain meaning when it comes to the only Biblically correct method of treating diseases such as leprosy? It would seem, according to Leviticus 14, that the correct answer to curing leprosy in the scientific age involves two birds, cedar wood, scarlet, hyssop and some sacrifices.

Do you suppose that, if Christians start to insist the proper treatment of disease dictates burnt offerings, it might have some "disastrous effects?"

I suppose that would depend what you were burning as an offering. I understand that certain abdominal ailments can be eased through inhalation of a certain burning substance...
Hmmm ... come to think of it, I've tried those burnt offerings. The trouble is I can never remember what the accompanying prayers were supposed to be ... before I wander off in search of food anyway.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education