I think SALVO Magazine is a great publication and nothing I am about to say here changes that. I think it’s so great in fact that after subscribing for one year on the recommendation of a friend [thanks Rick], I purchased all the back issues I could get my hands on. I think the mag is worth every cent. But it is because of one particular issue of SALVO that I decided to spend some time clarifying a view that is often misrepresented, even by Christians. That view is creationism, particularly the “young-earth” kind. 

Introducing Issue #4 (Winter 2008) – dedicated to the topic of Intelligent Design. Understandably I had a great time reading this! It includes some great articles that address questions like; Why is ID so important? What is the argument for ID from DNA? What does ID have to say about Biochemistry? What does Information tell us about ID? How can ID help us understand Living Cells? Can ID contribute to our understanding of Genetics? and; How does observability evidence Design? 

Conversely it addresses questions such as; What exactly is the problem with Evolutionary Theory? and; What can Evolution really do? It also delves into the political with articles like; What do ID proponents want taught in Public Schools? Has ID been banned in Public Schools? and; What happens when you challenge a school’s Science Curriculum? 

All very thought provoking articles to be sure. But throughout the magazine I was disappointed at times to find what I believe is an inaccurate characterization of creationism. As a relatively well-versed creationist myself, I decided to do a survey of this issue for references to creationism to highlight the nuances of the view and the ways in which it is often misunderstood and misrepresented.^[1] 

Read the rest of this entry

I was having a conversation with my Dad last night about the size and complexity of things at the microscopic level.

“For example”, I said, grabbing my copy of Jonathan Sarfati’s ‘By Design’ off the bookshelf and opening up to the chapter on motors, “the E.Coli bacteria is only 2µm long and the motor assembly that drives it is only 45nm in diameter. Not only that, but this is a real motor, much like the kind that you’d find in your car – with a stator, rotor, drive shaft, etc.”^[1,2]

“I don’t even know how to think of things that are so small,” he replied. “Once you start talking about things that size I just can’t even begin to imagine it?”

And perhaps with people like my Dad in mind, the University of Utah have set up a website that will help people to gain an appreciation for the size of the complex machines that get about in a largely unseen part of the world.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/

Just drag the cursor below the image from left to right to zoom in from the size of a coffee bean to a carbon atom [well technically, if you pay attention you'll notice the water molecule is smaller]. Very, very cool!

1. Jonathan Sarfati, By Design, (Creation Ministries International, 2008), p.136
2. As you drag the cursor from left to right, you’ll see the E.Coli about halfway down the scale, with a bunch of filaments extending from its cell walls. The flagellum rotary motors are embedded in the cell wall of the E. Coli at the other end of those filaments, although the program is not particularly set up to identify them.

Jonathan Sarfati’s response to Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth is quite adequately titled The Greatest Hoax on Earth.

Note, this is not a book review as I haven’t even yet had the privilege of holding it my hands, let alone read any of it. But having read many of the articles and books that Dr. Sarfati produces, knowing also that he has a high authority for scripture, and having seen/heard him debate and speak in person on several occasions, I can hardly think of a person I’d rather read in response to Dawkins.

From CMI’s store-page advertisement:

Richard Dawkins, the undisputed high priest of evolution/atheism, says his book The Greatest Show on Earth: the evidence for evolution is the first time he has presented all the evidence for evolution/long ages. It is promoted as an unanswerable demolition of creation. Scientist, logician, chessmaster and author of the world’s biggest-selling creationist book, CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, relentlessly demolishes Dawkin’s claims point-by-point, showing biblical creation makes more sense of the evidence.

The introductory chapter of the book is available to read for free online.

The book is only AU$20 for single orders. But if you can spare it I’d recommend you fork out the extra 20 bucks and get two additional recent DVD presentations by Dr. Sarfati as well: Evolution and the Holocaust and Leaving Your Brains at the Church Door

[Last updated by Duane: 9 March 2010]

According to a recent SMH article, the South Australian Non-Government Schools Registration Board decided to ban the teaching of creationism as part of the science curriculum.

Under policies published in December, the board said it required “teaching of science as an empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis.”

The SMH article provides an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues relating to creationism and science. However I only want to make one simple point about the misconceived relationship between the two.

To put it simply (as the SA board have done), the empirical discipline, focusing on inquiry, hypothesis, investigation, experimentation, observation and evidential analysis – watch this – is an integral part of creationism. It’s not anti-science or non-science, but values the scientific method as a way to understand the world in which we live. The two are very much homogenous, in the same way that materialists might view the relationship between evolution and science.

Science is the study of the natural world, which Christians would say is the study of the world God created. While materialists don’t accept a Christian worldview, we all still live in the same world and so we all have access to exactly the same evidence.

In studying this evidence however, materialists must draw conclusions shaped by materialist presuppositions. Appeals to design (implying a designer) are not allowed. The fallacy of this objection is that it presumes that the design argument is an appeal to ignorance. However the inference of design is based on an analogy of what we do know scientifically, not what we don’t. So Christians are not limited by a materialistic paradigm. This doesn’t mean that creationists invoke God-of-the-gaps solutions to problems that the materialist’s paradigm cannot currently resolve. But it means that they approach the evidence with the view that God created and that God’s word provides clues about the world which can inform our presuppositions for understanding the evidence. A practical example of this is the work of PhD physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett, who have both proposed models for the universe to rival popular big bang cosmology.

Read the rest of this entry

Or, Why Genesis 1 means exactly what it says: Another response to comments by Sandy Grant

In October 2006 I responded to the position held by Sandy Grant as described in his article “Reading Genesis”, published in the October 2006 edition of Matthias Media’s The Briefing. This was followed by another post in August 2007 after Sandy took the opportunity to clarify his position, believing that I had misrepresented him^[1]. I am quite aware that Sandy’s views are popular among Sydney Anglicans and The Briefing is widely promoted amongst Sydney Anglican churches. In fact during discussions I have had with informed Anglicans on this topic since October 2006, Grant’s article is often cited as an argument against a straight-forward reading of Genesis 1.

However while I believe I dealt with Sandy’s position (and objections) fairly in my previous posts, there were some additional points raised by Sandy in August 2007 that I will address now. In doing so I hope to demonstrate that a straight-forward reading of the early chapters of Genesis^[2] is the most sensible and that the kinds of objections that Sandy raises come from an unnecessary compromised theology that cannot be sustained.

Read the rest of this entry