Rick Richardson Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey
The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel
Bill M. Sullivan New Perspectives on Breaking the 200 Barrier
« Voxtropolis News… | Home | More Than Just The Sydney Bridge Climb »
Science Sunday Recap
By admin | March 18, 2007
Today in our series, “Legitimate Questions,” the question posed was “Doesn’t Science disprove Christianity.”
My hope was to help begin the conversation on this question, understanding that we couldn’t address every single facet of this question. But I also realized that I didn’t want some pep rally for “creationism” (which is different than Intelligent Design, but that’s a post for another day).
I think it went okay. There were portions in the first service where I could feel I wasn’t connecting fully because of the material. There were some important, albeit heady, issues to address. But it went better in the second service I think, partly because I scrapped a few sections to avoid any unnecessary issues.
I also did something out of the norm and went pretty linear and even had a list. :) I gave five reasons that seem to indicate there is an Intelligent Designer.
1. Cosmology - science points to a beginning of the universe. In my estimation this is the most difficult issue for Physicalism to address. Even if one accepts darwinian evolution we must still give account for how the ball got rolling
2. Irreducible Complexity - following Behe, there are entities at the cellular level that are so complex it doesn’t seem they could evolve slowly over time.
3. Fine-Tuning of the Universe - so many variables are aligne so precisely for life to exist on our planet it is extremely unlikely this could have happened through random processes.
4. Meaning in Life - only the existence of God provides meaning in life. As a negative argument I think this might be the most difficult for darwinian evolution to address. We all intuitively have this need for our lives to have meaning. That doesn’t seem possible via random processes.
5. “The Is” versus “The Ought” - closely related to the last if darwinian evolution is the only explanation for our existence then we can never assign value statements to life. When pain and suffering come we can never say, “it ought not be this way.” All we can say is, “stuff happens.” But again, intutuively this doesn’t seem to cut it.
I know there are a lot more than 5 things I could have brought up. But with limited time, and the priorities I embrace on this issue, this is the route I chose to take.
We’ll see what happens from here…
If you liked that post, check these...
Church Metrics is Up by jason on October 30th, 2008
2 Dreaded Questions I Get As A Church Planter by admin on November 28th, 2007
Pre-Launch Track: Session 3 by admin on April 25th, 2007
T-Minus 2 and Counting... by jason on February 8th, 2008
Missional DNA by admin on May 2nd, 2007
Topics: Communication, Science, Update |
March 18th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
i think the first service was better than ok and you appeared more comfortable this week. this was a hard one because the majority of the people could be easily discouraged if they didn’t grasp one of the issues and got lost in the reasoning. so what did ya scrap?
March 18th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I like the last argument a lot. Where before I might have dismissed it because it seems subjective, it makes sense to me now. I think part of it is me doing some living - going through really hard times for myself and really seeing some depths I’d not seen, or not seen for a long time. There really is something inside that says, “Really? This feels just wrong.”
March 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
And just because there weren’t enough in my previous comment, “Really really really really.” I think that’ll do it.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I definitely agree with you Matt. Especially in light of the Meaning in Life issue, in my mind the two are intimately tied to one another.
Mark, I scrapped the section before the cosmological argument related to physicalism (only that which is empirically verifiable is real). b/c the cosmo argument came right after I think it was all a bit too intense, and therefore hard to follow. I think it flowed a bit better b/c of that.
No heavy breathing in the Apex this week? I think they got that all taken care of.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Good job this week J. Tough tough subject to really talk about in an hour…probably the most difficult of the series. There are so many things you can go into and take up the whole hour with any one of them. I wish this one had been a two parter…you set the stage in a broad sense, ptII could get in the weeds. PtII would be more fitting for a study class I guess.
Just wanted to let you know that you sounded great from the back row!