








Get connected on the Genesis Code Facebook page.

The story:


  • Pingback: ‘Genesis Code’ film looks promising; argues no final conflict between faith and science | Liturgical()

  • Roger McKinney

    In the first place, there never has been a conflict between Christianity and science. As most philosophers and historians of science know, Christianity gave birth to moder science, mainly because of Christianity’s historical emphasis on reason and logic.

    The theory of evolution is not science; science is any effort that follows the scientific method. Evolution is a philosophy. The fact that most scientists follow that philosophy, and that they refuse to allow any other philosophy to be discussed, doesn’t make it a science.

    I’m a 6-day creationist, but I have known a lot of good Christians who were theistic evolutionists, or as real evolutionists call it, the “god in the gaps” theory. Many Christians, such as Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, find great comfort in making Genesis retell the story of evolution guided by God. But intellectually you’re going to have some serious problems doing so.

    1) You have to shred the principles of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a science, too, and it was developed as a subset of logic to apply logic to the interpretation of the Bible. Theistic evolution destroys hermeneutics.

    2) Traditional Christianity says that physical death appeared only after the fall from grace in the garden. God in the gaps requires millions of years of massive death.

    3) The whole point of Christ’s becoming human was to save us from ourselves. God created us perfect and our rebellion destroyed us. But with the god in the gaps theory, mankind never fell from a state of perfection; God caused us to evolve from animals, so we were always imperfect. Then at some point God proclaimed that imperfection unsatisfactory to him and condemned mankind to an eternity in hell, not because of something mankind did, but because of what God did in making us imperfect in the first place.

    The story is really sad. God spent millions of years evolving us to humans. Then, just when we finally achieve status as humans, God condemned us to an eternity in hell because we weren’t perfect. We would have been better of remaining as animals.

  • Roger McKinney

    PS, the theory of evolution is based on the philosophy of materialism, or as Hayek called it, scientism. The main point of materialism is that no objective truth exists outside of empirical sciences, or the natural sciences. So philosophy and religion can never be true unless supported by natural science. God in the gaps theologians give in to this false philosophy instead of insisting that logic is as valid a path to truth as empirical data. Materialism/scientism is an assault on logic as a means to truth. It’s an epistemological philosophical battle, not a scientific one.

  • Roger McKinney

    This quote from Bohm-Bawerk clarifies the epistemological problem: “The historical school believes the ultimate source of the errors of classical economy to be the false method by which it was pursued. It was almost entirely abstract-deductive, and, in their opinion, political economy should be only, or at least chiefly, inductive. In order to accomplish the necessary reform of the science, we must change the method of investigation; we must abandon abstraction and set ourselves to collecting empirical material — devote ourselves to history and statistics.” This is from an article on the blog today.
    Bohm-Bawerk is writing about the differences in epistemology between the German historical school and the Austrian school of economics, but the same problem exists between traditional Christianity and the unscientific theory of evolution. Materialists insist that inductive reasoning from empirical data is the only legitimate method for determining truth. Traditional Christianity has always insisted that the deductive method is not only legit, but the most certain path to truth in the matters of origins and theology. And if the conclusions that men reach through the inductive/empirical method disagree with those of the deductive method, the deductive method has the upper hand because data must be interpreted. Data never interprets itself. “Scientists” who claim that it does are either dishonest or delusional. The empirical data can easily be interpreted to fit a literal 6-day creation, as the field of Creation Science has demonstrated for decades.