Snippits

I have a subscription to the journal Science and Christian Belief which I have found to always be thought provoking and interesting.

One of the best bits for me however is reading the various quotes from people who have (due to increased age) been able to read around various thoughts and thinking on science/religion issues more than myself as they often provide good access points into the wider literature on the subject.

The latest edition (despite its cover being an amusing day-glo safety first colour) has a particularly good quote:

" It is one of the ironies of history that Christiandom which by its own Scriptures was committed to belief in an ever-working God (e.g. John 5:17) in a progressive revelation still incomplete (John 16:13), in suffering as the characteristic of the creature (Rom. 8:18-23) and the means to perfection (Heb. 2:10), and in fuller life as the divine purpose (John 10:10) should have so signally failed to maintain this belief when faced with the challenge of Darwinism.

Raven, C.E. Christianity and Science, London: Lutterworth Press (1951), p.31"

Sermon Review: Mars Hill - Doctrine of Creation

Mars Hill Church have been doing a sermon series on essential Christian Doctrines that they intend to use as an 'entry' series for their church membership. As Mars Hill is often a topic of conversation amongst some members of my own small group I thought I would have a listen to this series as well.

Being a scientist and a Christian I was particularly interested to hear what they had to say about Creation (#3 in the series) and offer up here a review of the sermon. The speaker was Mark Driscoll and the sermon can be viewed here at Mars Hill's website (about 60mins long).

My review is quite long (~10 pages) so I offer it as a file to download rather than a posting straight up here.

MHDoctrineofCreationSermonReview.pdf

MRDoctrineofCreationReview.doc

I hope that I have been fair throughout and if I haven't I ask for forgiveness. I found it a very difficult sermon to listen to as those of you who read my review will understand.

Hmm

The sermon at church on Sunday was about finding contentment in all circumstances and physically making an effort to apply ourselves to that goal as it won't just fall into your lap and instead will be a daily struggle.

The passage preached from was Philippians 3:17-4:11 which is all full of really good and challenging stuff but I have been particularly challenged by 4:2-3

"I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel,"

and the reminder we heard that our contentment will not be wholly fulfilled unless we have our (vertical) relationship with God correct and how that is tied into how our (horizontal) relationships are amongst each other.

It's a big challenge for me as there are still particular things I struggle with in this regard and I know they need dealing with (preferably soon) but am unsure how to.

Non-News

Readers of this blog will know I take a dim view of much science reporting on the BBC News website. As a whole the website is a useful and valuable resource. However the science section often leads much to be desired in both terms of both accuracy and responsibility.

This article in particular appears designed to irk me. GM seeds can 'last for 10 years'

But as you read the rest of the article you find out that so do non-GM seeds.... Marvellous.

Why is this:

1) Even news? We already know seeds stick around for ages.

2) Sensationalised in this way?

Good work BBC - you've reinforced the idea that somehow GM crops are proven dangerous while showing in the same article that they're no worse than others. Presumably this is what a 'balanced' article is like?

In a time when we need to seriously consider and debate in a mature and thoughtful way the use of GM foods for humanitarian and environmental reasons it doesn't help to keep the 'scare talk' of the last decade running.

Grr.