You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Science’ tag.

I was reminded tonight of a thought that crossed my mind a few days ago. The other day, I was browsing this thread on the Concept Art website (HT: Stephen Hendersen) of a gentleman who started as a complete novice artistically, but challenged himself to work on a painting or sketch everyday. While I was noting the progress he made, I made a connection that probably should’ve been obvious to me long before now.

When a artist begins a painting, he generally begins by first painting the background. This gives us an idea of the overall context for the picture. Is it nighttime? Is it indoors or out? As he continues on the painting, he’ll move on to the larger items in the foreground, creating trees or furniture, and as he’s nearing completion, he’ll add the finishing touches and the fine details. As I was looking at the stars tonight, I was struck by the similarities that this has to God’s own creation. When God created the world, he began with the background; light and darkness, sun, moon, and stars. As he progressed, he moved on to larger elements of the foreground, the earth and waters, and finally as he fashioned the earth, he formed the landscape, the animals, and finally mankind. And man and woman were the final touches that made his creation very good.

I think that oftentimes, we give lip-service to God, citing him as ultimate creator, the first artist and so on, but that is as far as we go. What we often fail to notice is this initial act of creation was not just a science project or a good and true story, but it is also the retelling of the first painting. It is the retelling of God the Artist’s work of art and what a work of art it is.

Advertisements

~ McGrath’s response to Dawkins

~ And….How old must this this guy be now.

Why to get a big screen monitor:

You know what’s better than a million pixels of Google Earth? Two million pixels of Google Earth.

Some comments on this excerpt from Nancy Pearcey’s article entitled Why Intelligent Design Will Win: Five Reasons to Keep an Open, Educated Mind Check out the full article for some context.

…Darwinist theory claims that the design in nature is not real but only apparent, a product of blind, mechanical forces. As arch-Darwinian Richard Dawkins said in a recent Salon interview, evolution produces “the illusion of design.” The implication for science, as Richard Rorty elaborates so clearly, is that truth is not “out there” to be discovered but is merely a social construction. Such postmodernist notions threaten to undercut the scientific enterprise…

I think that not only do they threaten to undercut the scientific enterprise, they already have. If you look at the ‘progress’ of science over the last few decades, it becomes clear that this ‘progress’ has become only a social construction. The controversy over the publication of Steve Myers’ now infamous journal article is good proof of this. It’s no longer about retaining the integrity of science as it is about retaining the ivory tower of the scientific academy. All this is yet another example of how Christians need only to be faithful in their profession and God will use it. The naturalist’s scientific world is imploding bit by bit. Psalm 135 says,

The idols of the nations are silver and gold, The work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak; Eyes they have, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear; Nor is there any breath in their mouths. Those who make them are like them; So is everyone who trusts in them.

These Darwinian ‘scientists’ are slowly distancing themselves from their only basis for true science and as a result are becoming increasingly like their idols; that is blind, deaf, and mute. And in a world where the opposition has such a handicap, faithfulness in science will reap benefits that are leaps and bounds ahead of the ‘science’ of their secular counterparts.

And now, thanks to modern scientific technology, we have this…

If you’ve been keeping up on the controversy back east regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design, you might be interested in this news story. This looks like it could be the first in a host of similar controversies over teaching Intelligent Design in government schools.

I was wondering the other day if there might be an interesting connection between these two gentlemen. More specifically I would like to find out exactly what sort of childhood Freud had. Freud is well known for his contributions to modern psycological theory and I would find it quite interesting if much of his own personal theories on the Oedipus Complex etc. came from his own personal experience. Did he have a desire to kill his father and marry his mother? On the other side of the coin, we have Augustine who as we know from his Confessions had a childhood and young adulthood riddled with sin and debauchery which haunted his concience for some time. The key comparison I would be interested in is how he dealt with it. With his psycological theories Freud seems to avoid a sin nature and as a result I think, he has to develop some sort of system wherein one is simply the victim of his environment and curing comes as a result of coming to terms with ones circumstances or something. Augustine on the other hand has similar issues regarding relationships and habits but they are considered within the paradigm of a sin nature and they are dealt with as such. If there is such a connection (I still need to learn more about Freud) I think it would be an interesting thought experiment then to analyze Freudian psycoanalysis from this Christian perspective.

While I was surfing the internet searching for some info on David Bentley Hart(Commented on by Dr. Leithart here & here), I came accross an older interview with Terence L. Nichols on Mars Hill Audio Journal, Issue 67 concerning some of the thoughts included in his book, The Sacred Cosmos: Christian Faith and the Challenge of Naturalism. The interview which can be heard here was interesting. His book suggests a more sacramental perspective of Creation. From what I have been studying, a very similar perspective was held in the Middle Ages, which I find interesting. The notion of every part of creation pointing in some way or another to God seem to me to make sense. I have yet to read Mr. Nichols book, but it looks to be quite a read and an important book for those Christians who are neck deep in science and naturalism as well as for laymen to develop a more in depth view of Creation. I am continually interested in the worldview paradigm that the medievals saw through and this book looks to rediscover that worldview for our contemporary culture.

I wanted to draw attention to this article I recently came accross here at school and was reminded of over on Erika Ridgeway’s blog. This new info should prove quite interesting. Perhaps Darwin himself was a mutant. He he.

This looks to be an interesting issue. I hope more news comes up about it. I am interested in the acccuracy of what they’re doing, but if it checks out, this could be big!