Recently, we invited and hosted Dr. William Dembski to speak on Intelligent Design (ID) at The University of Oklahoma. In preparation for his coming, some of our members produced a pamphlet that answered some of the most oft heard criticisms/objections to ID.
The answers are clear and concise. For anyone wanting to better understand the ID position and not be misled by “religious evolutionist’s” misinformation and misrepresentation regarding ID, this article should prove quite helpful. Continue reading →
Recently, The Roundtable in Theology at Trinity Baptist Church demonstrated how antagonists compare Genesis chapter one with chapter two and as a result, portray Genesis one as mere poetry, fiction, or myth—anything but historical prose.
At times this contradictory relationship is due to simply misunderstanding the nature of Genesis one and two, but often it is premised on the belief that the Scripture is not totally reliable, or to be taken as normal prose in Genesis one. This is almost always based on the presupposition that evolution is true and Genesis one and two must be interpreted in light of that rather than beginning with Genesis and interpreting evolution in light of the Biblical account.
Ignoring the full breadth of the significance and purpose of chapter two is a glaring omission that leads to the conclusion that Genesis one and two are incompatible. As a result of this conclusion, Christians are drawn into defending the trustworthiness of Genesis one and two based upon an unintended and indefensibly narrow purpose.
The following article is intended to demonstrate that the purpose of the construction of chapter two is not only to elaborate on chapter one, but to connect chapter one to chapter three, and thereby transition the narrative forward in the unfolding account of man. Chapter two, as constructed, is essential to communicating the full understanding of man’s beginning in a perfect garden, followed by the fall, the curse, the flood…and the full chronicle of God’s grace and provision of redemption for man as revealed in the following pages of Scripture. Therefore, the omissions and additions of chapter two compared with chapter one are based upon this expanded purpose, and when understood as intended, do not conflict with chapter one. Continue reading →
A friend of mine was in a position of bringin philosophers, theologians and scientist together. He heard arguments from evolutionary scientist arguing that the mere possible existence of God undermined scientist. He wrote William Dembski and me for a response. Continue reading →