The Unity of Truth

One Truth

The quote comes from a blog that I had drawn to my attention for the first time yesterday, and more specifically a post on it with the title “Evil-ution (Part 1).” For those interested in the intersection of science and Christianity, it is a blog that looks like it will be worth keeping an eye on.

"The key word is “graphic”. I haven’t been to the ark encounter, but I would ..."

Ark Encounter is not a Shrine ..."
"I don't have cable or dish, so I'm behind the times on TV land. But ..."

Ark Encounter is not a Shrine ..."
"One last thought on the possible portrayal of Jesus as greater than the Caesar's:Craig Koester’s ..."

Happy Easter!
"And there may be reason to suppose the early Christians were directly concerned with establishing ..."

Happy Easter!

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Benjamin Martin

    Consistent with a scientific viewpoint, are the resurrection, salvation, heaven, and hell also accepted as mythological?

    • David Evans

      Not the same thing. Young-Earth creationism is inconsistent not with “a scientific viewpoint” but with a huge array of scientific facts. Some scientific viewpoints are inconsistent with some of those religious concepts, others are not.

      • Benjamin Martin

        You’re hairsplitting. And avoiding what accepting biological evolution does: it destroys the supernatural foundation of religious doctrine in deeper ways than just origins in Genesis.

        • David Evans

          I think I’m making an important distinction. Galileo surely had a scientific viewpoint. What he lacked was the factual and theoretical basis for disputing YEC which we have accumulated since his time.
          And you will find plenty of good scientists who accept biological evolution and believe it to be consistent with their religion. That’s an ongoing argument, you can’t just declare it closed.

          • Benjamin Martin

            Don’t put words in my mouth, ok? Since when is expressing my opinion on a subject to be construed as “declaring it closed?” You’re a piece of work, beyond mere hairsplitting.

    • Jonathan Bernier

      I think that the “also” is problematic here, as the author never says anything about anything being mythological. What does the author accept as mythological? And what, for that matter, do you mean by “mythological,” a word with a notoriously loose definition? What is the author supposedly accepting? Perhaps best not to put words in the author’s mouth.

      • Benjamin Martin

        Many Christians today view the early Genesis chapters as ‘mythological’ literature”…

        Perhaps best to take the time to read the blog being examined here.

        • Jonathan Bernier

          Perhaps best to indicate that you were referring not simply to what was quoted above but to the post more generally. But regardless: what I don’t see in your comment here is an account of what it would mean to “accept,” say, salvation as “mythological.” In fact, I have no idea what it mean to say that salvation in particular is mythological.

          • Benjamin Martin

            Both Reinhold Niebuhr and Carl Jung have in their writing used the exact phrase “the Christian myth of salvation.”

          • Jonathan Bernier

            Well, then, it shouldn’t be too hard to explain what you mean by the phrase. Presumably it is the same as Niebuhr and Jung, and thus presumably they both meant the same thing. So, what exactly does it mean?

  • David Evans

    Nice quote. It’s a pity it repeats the common misconception that carbon dating has anything to do with the age of the Earth.

    • Benjamin Martin

      Carbon dating can be used to determine ages to about 60,000 years old. That’s way older than 4004 B.C.

      • David Evans

        True, but mentioning it in the same sentence as “life and the earth are billions of years old” is surely misleading. Radiometric dating would have been better.

        • Benjamin Martin

          Carbon dating is a type of radiometric dating, (as are uranium and thorium dating.) You’re hairsplitting again.

          • David Evans

            Carbon dating does not tell you that the Earth is billions of years old.

          • Benjamin Martin

            I never said it did. I did say radiocarbon dating is good for about 60,000 years, which is scope enough to readily disprove literal interpretations of biblical mythology.

    • Jonathan Bernier

      Absolutely true. It has nothing to do with the age of the Earth. But the author here is describing what he has taught as a boy in a YEC context. And as someone who grew up in such a context I can tell you that radiocarbon dating always came up when the age of the Earth was discussed.