John Walton Responds to Vern Poythress’s Review of “The Lost World of Genesis One”
By Beckwith, Francis | March 19, 2010 | Category: Guest Features
When the ID movement first burst on the scene in the mid-1990s, it lacked the amateurishness of the creation-science movement while at the same time making its main goal to unseat philosophical naturalism. As a philosopher who had critiqued one sort of naturalist project in his doctoral dissertation, ID intrigued me, especially since its first major conference at Biola University in 1996 included many respected and accomplished philosophers.
Comments (28)
By Ruse, Michael | March 18, 2010 | Category: Guest Features
Childhood Christianity just faded away in my early twenties. There wasn’t any kind of Road to Damascus experience in reverse, nor was it a direct function of taking up philosophy. The feelings and beliefs just went. They have never returned.
Comments (6)
March 17, 2010 | Category: Video Blogs
In this video conversation, Pete Enns sheds light on the key difference between the ancient and modern mind with regard to interpretation of texts. A literal understanding of Genesis from an ancient mind frame would not necessarily be the same as what we now think of as a literal reading—where everything corresponds to reality in a one to one fashion.
Comments (5)
By Enns, Pete | March 16, 2010 | Category: BioLogos Features
This raises another sort of question: Is it even necessary for Paul and the Old Testament to have the same exact view of the nature of sin? Can Paul have a clearer view on the true depth of our alienation from God that is not yet present in the Old Testament in general or Genesis specifically? Does Paul’s use of the Adam story actually depend on him not reading it literally?
Comments (57)
By Giberson, Karl | March 15, 2010 | Category: BioLogos Features
The problem of puzzlement is similar. If we say that an intelligent agent has produced certain strings of DNA, are we more or less puzzled by the problem of DNA when we are all done? Frankly, I am more puzzled after hearing this claim. This “explanation” generates a set of questions even more troubling than our original query about how information-rich strings of DNA came to be.
Comments (111)
