Satan made me do it

I was going to save this for last, and I suppose that I have in spite of having 6 more of Rev. Miller’s headline reasons “Why Won't Creationists Just Give Up?” that I could take to the trash heap.

But here is the definitive reason against discussing reality with Miller, or his ilk;

“Because Satan has provided people with a way of looking at the world that doesn't need God (evolutionary theory), and we need to expose the weaknesses in that proposition rather than compromise with it.”

Rev. Adrian Miller seeks to avoid any critical thinking about his extreme claims for revelatory perfection by preemptively blaming Satan for any counter evidence, or objections. This makes it impossible for Miller to discuss anything at all in good faith. Anything he doesn’t like is because “Satan did it.” Anything that shows Miller to be a hypocrite, “Satan did it.” Anything that shows Miller to be an ignorant twit, “Satan did it.”

Is there any reason to finish Miller's objections to reality?

Adrian Miller, Part 3: What Wiser Christians Have Said

To recap, an Anglican Priest the Reverend Adrian Miller, claimed his biblical gloss known as YECism was supported,

”Because we recognise the importance of revelation in our approach to knowing.”

And he knows this because, "In the past God spoke through prophets and now He speaks to us through Jesus." with textural support from the opening lines of The Epistle to the Hebrews.

The first revelation of the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, demands that the physical universe is co-equal with the textural revelation. The second revelation, the New Testiment, generally affirms the old revelation regarding the revelation of nature (eg. Romans 1:20) with the added bit that “Jewish fables and genealogies” are expressly to be ignored as they are “unprofitable and worthless,” (Titus 3: 9). That pretty much finished the YEC cult “revelation” right there.

But, this was not my original insight. (Well, I learned later that it was not my original insight). There is a strong recent effort to salvage Christian theology from the YEC cult in the Christian Clergy Letter Project, which states,

“Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

Over 12,746 Christian clergy in America have affirmed this statement as of 6/24/11. But of course, THE PERFECT HOLY PREIST ADRIAN is far more pious, Christ-like, and educated than any of these thousands of clergy. But these are not new efforts to save Christianity from derision and irrelevance. For example, consider the following:

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." (Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437).

That was a fairly recent admission occasioned by the scientific discoveries, not of Darwin, but of geology. It was in turn anticipated by,

“Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)

But that is recent still as we have the testimony of Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This was cited by Galileo, not that it did him any good.

Still earlier we have John Calvin (1509 – 1564) writing on Genesis,

"For to my mind this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy and the other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.” And later he stated, “It must be remembered, that Moses does not speak with philosophical acuteness on occult mysteries, but states those things which are everywhere observed, even by the uncultivated, and which are in common use. (Genesis, I, 79 & 84 (1554).”

Why can’t Mr. Miller follow the logic of Calvin when he observed,

“ Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage.” Calvin J., Genesis, Vol. I, Part 3 (1554).

I should hope that all YEC cultists give serious attention to Thomas Aquinas on science and faith, who wrote,

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

Aquinas refers to the Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in "Ancient Christian Writers," Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”

Here we enter back into the Revelation that Mr. Adrian Miller wants to vouchsafe over the work of science. But, as before we find that this revelation rejects Mr. Miller and his YEC cult. Why did Aquinas, and Augustine warn against making “obstacles be placed to their believing?” They were warning any Christian who would try to enforce a denial of the physical revelation to support a false biblical interpretation. They were making a direct reference to Luke 17:1. (Jesus) said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2. "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.” Also, Matthew 18:7. "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” Or, as the Apostle Paul wrote, "determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).

I hope you, Mr. Miller, will read these Scriptures in their broader meaning and then give full consideration of my current favorite Scripture;

James 3:1. Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

Personally I feel fine about this. If I were you Mr. Miller, I would shit my pants with terror because you are preaching lies. But, I don’t think you really believe any of this at all. Preaching is just easier than a real job.

(Edited 18 July to tone down what I think of Mr. Miller.)

Adrian Miller, Part 2

In Part 1, I provided some references from the Tanakh, or “Old Testament” that taught that the physical creation is a ‘revelation’ of God’s nature. For example, it was taught that the revelation of the Earth was “emet” or “certain and dependable” (Psalm 85). The Book of Job assures us that; the animals, the birds of the air, the earth, and the fish of the sea, can all inform us of God’s creative acts, and nature (Job 12:7-8).

But for Part 2, I want to focus on Part 2 of the Bible. And the first question is does the New Testament also regard the physical universe as a revelation of God’s nature? The obvious text is from Paul;
Romans 1:
20. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23. and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Obviously, verse 20 demands that Christians acknowledge the physical revelation; the same stones and bones, birds and fishes commended by Job, and the Psalms. Of particular note in the context of the anti-science program of creationism is verse 22. This fragment of the whole thought is very popular with creationists celebrating their abject ignorance of science and congratulating themselves for being unwise, but not fools. I have had exchanges with followers of YEC preachers like Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind who insisted that the “wise” who became “fools” was a prophetic text referring to ‘evilutionists.’ The "wise" in verse 22 referred to astrologers in particular, and verse 23 is reference to the deification of Roman emperors, and worship of Egyptian gods; e.g. Anubis with his jackal head, Horus with a hawk’s head, Sobek the crocodile, or Tawaret an amalgam of the head of a hippopotamus, arms and legs of a lion, the back and tail of a crocodile, and the breasts and stomach of a pregnant woman.

Here is a partial list of scriptures which assert the dual revelations of nature and scripture; Job 10:8-14, Job 12:7-8, Job 34:14-15, Job 38-41, Psalm 8, Psalm 19:1-6, Psalm 50:6, Psalm 97:6, Psalm 98:2-3, Psalm 104, Psalm 139, Ecclesiastes 3:11, Habakkuk 3:3, Proverbs 8:22-31, Acts 17:24-31, Romans 1:20-23, Romans 2:14-15, Colossians 1:23.

But, the New Testament, particularly in the writing of Paul (or his followers), goes well beyond merely attesting to the physical revelation. Regarding the ancient, and perhaps confused biblical traditions, Paul advised Titus, "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Torah, for they are unprofitable and worthless. (Titus 3: 9).”

The young earth creation sect is wholly reliant on the tolodot or “generations” listed in various locations throughout the biblical texts for their "age of the Earth" computations. You cannot even get past Genesis 11 without some serious confusions, and textural contradictions. The Apostle Paul is entirely correct to advise against giving them any attention; they are “unprofitable and worthless." Paul’s advice is not limited to Titus, as this is a common refrain in his writing (or those of his followers). For example, Romans 7:6 “But now we are delivered from the Torah, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.” And, even stronger, 2 Corinthans 3:6 "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (Torah) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." The YEC cult instead demands we deny the obvious truth (emet) of astronomy, geology, paleontology, anthropology and biology in favor of “fables and endless genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4).”

Adrian Miller, and a comment about comments.

Spammers a fond of making comments on blogs, particularly to old posts, and they seem to avoid moderation queues. It is much effort to go digging through the comment sections of old posts to delete spam. So, I altered the settings to the comments for “Stones and Bones” to allow unmoderated comments for 4 days following a post, and then all later comments are referred to a moderation queue.

I never made a point to explain this in the past, and it has now tangled two recent comments. One was a request for information/opinion prompted to a newspaper’s on-line discussion of creationism and evolution in schools.

The second was from Rev. Adrian Miller, a vicar in Norwich Diocese, GB. Miller is a Young Earth Creationist, and I have written 2 posts regarding his article "Why Won't Creationists Just Give Up?”. These were the Saturday, May 28, 2011 post, “When the crazy goes mainstream,” and Rev. Adrian Miller, Part 1.” Miller’s reply followed the latter.

So that I don’t need to mess around with moderation, I’ll pull Rev. Miller’s comment to the front, extend the open comment period, and request that the conversation continues in this thread. At the same time, I have “Part 2” about ready. This will extend my argument that the Bible is not supportive of science denying YECism.

Rev. Miller’s comment:

Thanks again for reading my article and taking the time to respond to it.

There was a time I was intimidated by evolutionist dogma, but after I studied evolution as part of my first degree, I realised how much philosophy is involved and how the evidence lends itself to widely different conclusions. I've simply sought to be open and honest in my search for truth.

What you've written doesn't cause me to doubt that I have good ground for my views on origins. You seem to have taken my headlines, written your own articles under them in my voice and then argued against yourself. I don't recognise my thinking in what you've said.

For example, I don't hate Darwin - in fact I admire him in many ways. I think his theology was faulty and I disagree with him on some points, but that's not the same thing.

When I mention revelation in knowing, I am not talking crazy - I am standing firmly in mainstream orthodox Christian tradition. A fully formed Christian epistemology accepts that we know some things through data coming via physical senses (empirical epistemology), we know some things through the use of our reason (rationalist epistemology), but there are also certain things we can only know through God revealing them (revelational epistemology). A key text would be Hebrews 1:1-2 - In the past God spoke through prophets and now He speaks to us through Jesus.

In fact, to adopt a view that accepts a Christian epistemology and yet is uncritical of science founded on a non-Christian epistemology is inconsistent - I would feel crazier doing that than adopting the consistent worldview that I am working with. The point of my article was to call Christian thinkers to engage deeper in conversation where there are disagreements, so that we might all be thinking consistently.

If you really want to rid the world of creationists, the way I see it, you have 2 choices. You can shout as loudly and intimidatingly as you can, which will cause a lot of those who are undecided about the issues to avoid creationism because they don't want to be victim to that. Or you can take us seriously, understand the philosophical issues that we're dealing with and give us sound reasons why our philosophical foundations are shaky. The latter is a more challenging route but would be more effective. No need to call us crazy.
3:41 AM PDT

My reply;

First, I have labeled these as clearly as I can to avoid the confusion you, Rev. Miller seem to have had. Earlier I had merely (and I thought clearly) quoted you and one of your “headline reasons” to reject science followed by my counter argument. That “headline” was that you reject science,

”Because we recognise the importance of revelation in our approach to knowing.”

The first part of my reply was largely devoted to the Tanakh sections that taught that in the biblical revelation you claim as True™ (or at least the parts you acknowledge) the physical creation is a “revelation” co-equal with textural accounts. I am arguing within your claims of truth here, Rev. Miller. For the moment we are accepting the biblical revelation as true and it is you who is ignoring it. My position might be more clear if I point out that it is easy for priests to edit, change, or delete a text, and currently impossible for anyone to edit stars, oceans or mountains. In that respect, I fully agree with the Bible stating that “Truth (emet, or “certainty and dependability”) springs from the earth …” Psalm 85:11.

If you are so confused on how to parse my use of English, how did you manage biblical Hebrew?

Next, I have no idea what you might have been taught about biology, geology, or any other science. Even had you been one of my undergraduates, I would not know what it was you thought you had learned. Otherwise, all my students would have received ‘outstanding,” and graduated Summa etc… (A few did, but only a few). At the moment, I am only discussing your fragmented acceptance of some of the Bible as revelation, but not all. So, if you want to provide some of these ‘evidences’ we can address them. I cannot be expected to know them implicitly.

The “talking crazy” is a significant issue that we ought to clear up. I was a professor of psychiatry for a number of years. Around 1982, I helped found a professional seminar on Religion and Psychiatry. It was attended monthly by students and faculty of the Medical College of Georgia where I was a professor. It was also attended by a number of clergy, with a surprising range of faiths and sects. Our students included Hindus, Jews, various Protestants, Catholics, Agnostics and Atheists. We had clergy participants from the Southern Baptists (of course), but also rabbis, Catholic, and Russian Orthodox priests, Unitarians, and unaffiliated evangelical ministers as well. We had two primary goals; to teach the medical residents that merely being religious was not de facto insane, and to try to teach the clergy some basics about psychiatry. If I could summarize this in a single sentence, “It is not insane to believe ghosts exist; it is insane if they often visit you.” You might be amused that a few students actually rediscovered their religious faith participating in our seminar.

So, Mr. Miller, I have been taking religions quite seriously (even yours) perhaps longer than you have. I don't know if you personally are crazy, the alternatives are in some ways worse.

EDIT 15 July: I corrected a few typos, and tried to clarify some sentence structure.

Rev. Adrian Miller, Part 1

Rev Adrian Miller is a vicar in Norfolk serving in Norwich Diocese, ordained in 2006. He is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) and a member of the British Creationist Society for 13 years, long before he joined the priesthood. He recently published an article in the house journal of the British Creationist Society that was republished on-line as “Why Won't Creationists Just Give Up?“ originally from "Origins 54," the magazine of the Biblical Creationist Society.

Rev. Miller goes on at some length, but the opening eight reasons, his “Headline Reasons” seem enough to sink his enterprise. Miller summarized what he thinks he has said;

“All in all, there are good theological, philosophical, sociological, biological, geological, cosmological, anthropological, epistemological, missional, spiritual and scientific reasons why we creationists won't just give up.”

So, Miller presents himself as prepared for a universal defense of creationist cant against all the sciences and philosophy, theology, and “spirituality.” Miller will need to distinguish his version of spirituality from the commercial variants represented by Tarot Card readers, and Miss Dionne Warwick’s television “Psychic Friends Network.” And then he will need to justify his spirituality against that of probably more pious, and chaste, and poor Buddhist or Hindu monks and priests. In fact, I doubt that Miller can honestly boast of his superior “spirituality” contrasted with the thousands of Christian Clergy who have signed the “Clergy Letter Project.”

One of Miller’s opening reasons to believe in YEC is,

”Because we recognise the importance of revelation in our approach to knowing.”

The Rev. Miller wants us to believe that the voices in his head are God speaking to him, and that Miller is competent to transmit these voices to us perfectly and without any interpretive bias. However, in modern psychiatry we know that we can give you a pill to make the voices go away, and that there are other pills that will bring them back. This alone makes the voices of revelation highly suspect. In modern psychology we have learned that no individual is capable of totally unbiased anything, our cognition is the result of neural architecture, as that this is altered by experience, and culture.

If not the voices in his head, then voices in some dead guy’s head, which in the specific case of the Bible were “spoken” to a near savage. These ‘revelations’ were then; in cultures, and in languages only poorly known, translated and edited and re-translated and re-edited for thousands of years. That is all that a claim for the validity of “revelation” can mean. So, we must ask the Reverend if the act of translation, redacting and editing have over the millennia been also the subject of “revelation?” Is the Bible evolving? Is there a continuing revelation, or is mankind’s direct communion with God dead? Is biblical exegesis dead? How can you deny the fact of an evolving creation if you can grasp the fact of an evolving ‘revelation?”

Creationists like Rev. Miller like to hate Charles Darwin. In fact, Miller later makes the assertion that Darwin was inspired by Satan. Darwin was far kinder to men like Miller. Describing how he had only with great reluctance abandoned his orthodox Christian beliefs, Darwin wrote,

“The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.” (Autobiography, 1958, pg, 86-87, Original publication 1910, written 1882).

But what if…

What if the Bible is really Revelation? What if the Bible is to be believed with the fervor and literalness of someone like Rev. Miller? Then the Bible fails to support his creationism as well, because the Bible clearly and firmly teaches that the Creation is equally valid as the Revelation, and that it is not new. First consider, Psalm 19:

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
2 Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge. (New American Standard Bible)

The Creation, the physical universe is a testament. It reveals the work of God, and (if read literally) it to reveals God’s nature. This theme is extended in Psalm 85 which reads, “11 “Truth springs from the earth; and righteousness looks down from heaven” (NASB). The Hebrew word used here for "truth," emet, basically means “certainty and dependability.” So, in the Revelation of the Bible which Rev. Miller professes, the Earth itself is attested as the source of truth, of “certainty” and “dependability.”

Are we really to pay attention to the physical creation? Ask Job. Job challenges doubters of God, “Ask the animals, they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you.” — Job 12:7-8. How could this be if the sciences, particularly as all these sciences evoked by Job, Rev. Miller rejects as inspired by Satan? (Miller will falsely claim that there is a special “Creation Science” without the difficult cosmology problems like billions of years since the Big Bang, or the formation of the solar system. Miller will also deny the physical evidence from geology, paleontology, biology and anthropology).

Some of the most obvious Bible verses that illustrated an understanding of the unity of man and nature are in the book of Ecclesiastes. Eccles. 9:11 “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.” (KJV)

The race is not always to the swift, otherwise a fast predator would totally destroy the prey. The predator would then obviously die without prey. The race is "not always to the swift!" And then to add, "but time and chance happeneth to them all." is just too perfect a summation of evolutionary gradualism I have ever read! What brilliant biblical "evidences" for evolution. Exactly what creationists like Rev. Miller deny is the action of “time and chance.” And yet they are instructed by their Bible that these are significant factors in the evolution of life on Earth.

Another fact that creationists like Miller like to avoid is that humans are directly linked to all life on Earth. They prefer to imagine that they are “special’ in the eyes of the biblical God. After all, humans are set apart from mere animals according to some readings of Genesis. But, in Eccl 3:18-20 “I said to myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts." For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. (NASU)” The specific reference in Eccl 3:19-20 to “breath,” and to “dust” relates back to Genesis where humanity is specially created in Genesis 2:7.

So far, Rev. Miller's Revelation is in opposition to his Creationism. We will next examine Rev. Miller's creationist dogmas about Genesis in the light of the New Testament.

When the crazy goes mainstream.

I came across this the other day.  It is from Rev Adrian Miller, an Anglican vicar and a member of the Biblical Creation Society (British). He is giving his answer to a question he says he hears, "Why Won't Creationists Just Give Up?"


A FEW HEADLINE REASONS

- Because we see the empirical data from the sciences fitting so much better within a creationist framework and using creationist models.

- Because we see as inadequate any hermeneutic that treats Genesis as having nothing to say about earth history, biology, palaeo-anthropology, and so on.

- Because we recognise the deistic theology and naturalistic philosophy on which Darwin built his biological ideas, and which seeps into our thinking if we embrace Darwin.

- Because we recognise the importance of revelation in our approach to knowing.

- Because we appreciate the 'Emperor's New Clothes', sociological factors that pressurise members of our society - especially the intellectual elite -to conform to this world, in opposition to Paul's teaching in Romans 12:1-2.

- Because history tells us that where the church has embraced Darwin, it has been weakened.

- Because Satan has provided people with a way of looking at the world that doesn't need God, and we need to expose the weaknesses in that proposition rather than compromise with it.

- Because, far from being bad for mission, creationism provides the best apologetical approach, and makes for the deepest disciples. Incidentally, this isn't to say that we don't have our work cut out convincing 'Greek thinkers' that our message of the cross is not foolishness (1 Cor. 1:22f) - it just means that it's even more important that we present a united front on these issues.


So, eight big chunks of crazy. I think these should orient my next eight posts.