I have to point out that science has, and I imagine will, take on hypotheses that are not testable. The Big Bang is certainly not testable, and has been accepted by the scientific world. Most certainly in astro physics.

Some in science have plenty to say about the existence of a Creator, Intellect, or Cause. Nowadays many of their colleagues try and shut them out of the discussion if not shut them up altogether. Ironically, it’s very similar to what happened to the God-fearing scientist Galileo Galilei.

Despite what some may want, the subject or field of science cannot speak for itself. It is and has been driven by opinion (among other things). The opinion of men. Those men decide what “science says”. You follow the crowd of men who say science says nothing on the subject; I side with the crowd that says follow the evidence where it leads.

I certainly am no expert in science, but completely clueless? That’s a rather insulting way to disagree with someone who pretty much simply quoted some of the brilliant minds in the world of science, including, of course, the queen of sciences (IMHO), theology. The overwhelming majority of my post is quotes. And I’m pretty certain they are within context as well.

It seems to me you’ve taken issue with my criticism of Stephen Hawking quote from the Grand Design. You do realize that he has stepped out of his field of expertise and into the world of philosophy with his comment, right? And in his doing so he made C.S. Lewis seem prophetic in the quote I supplied from his book “Miracles” which was originally published in 1947.

Lastly, while I’m certainly not beneath acquiring a bit more humility, you may want to consider not insulting the folks you recommend be humble. It tends to clash.

I found your take on this book very interesting. I’m aware there is some controversy as to how much of it is Flew’s own work, but in the end I guess one has to take the book itself at face value, regardless of who actually wrote what part of it.

I’d be really interested in what you think of Another Flew over the cuckoo’s nest.

Thanks,
Chris Lawrence.

“well it’s out on the highway and on with the show;
always telling people things they’re too lazy to know;
it will make you crazy, it will drive you insane;
tell me why, must i always explain”

You are right to take exception to my description in this essay. It was not my intention to give the impression that New Testament is chocked full of quotes from the Old Testament apocryphal books, but to show that these books are very important. So important that the early Church Fathers quote from them more than a little. But here is where one of the problems lie. Trying to get folks to understand the value of history by referring to a history they have likely missed out on and have little interest in is quite frustrating.

I wasn’t smart enough to phrase how a large portion of the church views them as well as you have, but I will try and remember for the next time. My weaknesses become more and more obvious over the years thanks be to God, but through His grace I’ve learned to be glad in this as well.

My desire is for them to see the importance of these books as well as their value. The very same importance that the Church Fathers gave them. I often hear some of them mention how they are familiar with the works of some of the Church Fathers (e.g. Sts Irenaeus, Basil, Chrysostom, and others), but I can’t help but wonder how much they actually know of what they read. I believe getting them to connect the Church Fathers and the New Testament is critical both historically and spiritually. Once they allow this then they can see for themselves how the Fathers saw and explained the foretelling and the arrival of the Savior through their Scriptures of the time, the Old Testament, as you well know. However, they will also be exposed to apologetic works of the Fathers who have dealt with heresies in ways that I don’t see anyone today approaching. St. Irenaeus alone pretty much took care of the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, as well as many others in his works. But enough of my telling you what you know.

In plain speak, I simply want them to know their history and not try and reinvent what’s been so wonderfully done for them already.

There are 100 million fossils which show that animals which lived hundreds of million years ago are exactly the same as their current counterparts. This is clear evidence “against evolution.”

Also, natural selection does not have the capacity to change the genetic code on the DNA. The rabbits may run faster, and survive but they do not turn out to be other “more advanced” and “advantageous” creature because their DNA code is not effected. They die in the end along with their faster running legs. Lamarckism is already an outdated theory.

Therefore, creation is a fact, evolution could not have happened. Besides, no graduation can explain the irreducible complexity in for instance body organs. Think of the blood, if all blood cells had presumably evolved without the hemoglobin molecule inside, what use? If the stomach did not have the protective tissue to prevent destroying itself due to hydrocholoric acid, what use? If all organs were there but you could not breathe with your lungs and the oxygen was not transferred to each one of your cells, what use?

Please think once again before you decide. Evolution – really did not happen, cannot have happened – there is no evidence, no mechanism. But all findings and science indeed show that there is an anthropic principle behind the universe with incredibly fine tuned quarks in the atom, nuclear power in the nucleus of the atom, 3 billion lettered vast library with immense information in the DNA.

Who encoded the DNA?
Who made the quarks in the atom?
Who set the oxygen in the atmosphere just in the right ratio so that we are not burnt to death?
Who mixed water – soil and minerals to bring out thousands of vegetation and fruit with wonderful tastes and scents right from the dark earth?

God is the Creator of every detail that we see in this universe, and we will see the intelligence and wisdom behind each and every created thing if we look with an open eye (heart).

the books of NT era apochrypha are often heretical–with the exception of books like “the didiche”, “shepherd of hermas” the “epistle of barnabas”. reading the gospel of thomas, or the gospel of peter is tantamount to reading the book of mormon. these NT era books are called psuedepigripha (“fake name”. as in, thomas and peter didn’t write the books attributed to them)

thus, most protestant’s association with books outside what we recognize as Canon, reflects a (healthy) fear. they are correct to be suspicious about books they haven’t been taught about, just as you would be if a mormon asked you to read what they recognize as inspired (i, of course, see a world of difference between the books you are talking about and the book of mormon and gnostic gospels…).

many of the OT era books (and the non-psuedepigraphal NT era books) are excellent and uplifting reading. while i dont’ recognize them as being inspired (as in “God-breathed”) and worthy to be in the Canon, they are inspiring.

i would take exception to some of your description in this essay…there is very little NT quotation from apochryphal books (jude has one…paul seems to use the LXX as he quotes from the OT)…but, suffice to say, most of these books are not harmful/heretical.

so, in talking about these books, i would say it this way “did you know that for centuries many of these books have been considered Canon by a large portion of the church?” or something to that effect. then separate them from those unhealthy books…and encourage them to read good spiriutal material in the same manner as they would read lewis or tozer or someone else.

Regarding your comment, it might help to allow yourself to see the bigger picture of what Lewis is trying to say.

For example, when I went to basic training the goal was to get us to function as a team so as to learn to function in the even bigger team that is the U.S. Air Force. It didn’t matter that I was a black guy from Harlem, that Artie was a white guy Louisiana, or that Jimmy Lee was white guy Arkansas, we needed to learn how to function as a team of U.S. Airmen if we wanted to graduate. It wasn’t easy and the cultural similarities lacking quite a bit, but in the end it had to be done. Our willingness to focus on the larger context eliminated the need for the more comfortable similar experiences of race and cultural familiarity one is naturally inclined towards, and allowed us to focus on becoming part of something much bigger than what we were used to. I’m happy to say it worked.

I’m not sure which of Lewis’ works you’ve read, but I find it difficult to believe that you could be referring to “Mere Christianity” seeing as it’s so general in its approach, not to mention a logical tour de force.

Ultimately, the choice is yours, including the choice of calling his arguments unconvincing; however, if you’re going to go through life looking for experiences that mirror your own as some sort of criteria for the basis of their validity, you’re in for some surprises. Blaise Pascal, no slouch in the thinking world by any means, wrote, “Reason’s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things beyond it.”. I ask that you consider this statement.

His arguments for god, however, are unconvincing. Not least because his experience of being an atheist in no way mirrors my own.