Science vs God? Not Necessarily! - David Wilkinson Interview

With the visit of Laurence Krauss to Australia the issue of the 'conflict' between science and Christianity is again in the news. This interview from CPX with Professor David Wilkinson is a reminder that the conflict is often over-stated!

David Wilikinson works in the Theology and Religion department at Durham University. His background is research in theoretical astrophysics, where his PhD was in the study of star formation, the chemical evolution of galaxies and terrestrial mass extinctions such as the event which wiped out the dinosaurs. He is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and has published a wide range of papers on these subjects. His latest book is called Science, Religion and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.



The CPX website is at www.publicchristianity.org.

.

John Lennox on Science, the Bible and Belief in the 21st Century

John Lennox is currently in Australia. He is Professor of Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford University. I went to hear him this week speak to a packed auditorium at a school in Southern Sydney. He particularly spoke about the arguments of the 'New Atheists' (who include Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer - all of whom he has debated) and some of the flaws in their arguments.

It was a helpful talk that also presented clearly some of the arguments for Christianity and the basis of Lennox's own belief.  Unfortunately it was all-too-brief and has motivated me to continue reading his book (which I have just started): God's undertaker: Has Science Buried God (2009).

This interview from CPX was recorded on a previous visit to Australia, and discusses some of the issues in a helpful way:


Science, the Bible and belief in the 21st Century from CPX on Vimeo.


You can find more Lennox videos at:  http://www.publicchristianity.com/lennoxvids.html

...

Archbishop Ussher and the Birthday of the Universe

I was listening to ABC 702 this morning and heard Adam Spencer make the following comment:

"And a happy 27th of October to you all. Perhaps a birthday – an anniversary – the maths extension 1 exam.

Well for some creationists, Oct 27 4004bc is the day of creation itself. I chatted with Dr Mark Harwood from Creation Ministries about what underpins creation theory. Interesting stuff indeed. Hmmmmmmmmmmm."

This was the introduction to an interview (that can be found here) in which Dr Harwood (from Creation Ministries International) did a reasonable job of defending his position as a Young-Earth creationist despite some fairly belligerent interviewing by Adam.

After hearing the interview I checked the facts about Archbishop James Ussher (Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, 1625 - 1656). Adam should have checked his facts, because Archbishop Ussher calculate that the earth was created about nightfall before October 23rd. 4004 BC. According to Wikipedia:

After a 1647 work on the origin of the Creeds, Ussher published a treatise on the calendar in 1648. This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars postierior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been nightfall preceding 23 October 4004 BC (According to the Julian calendar).

 
Now, leaving aside Adam's error, how important is this date? Should we celebrate it as the birthday of the world? Do we have to accept that the world is about 6000 years old if we want to uphold the authority of the Bible as the Word of God (as Dr Harwood implied)?
 
I would suggest that Archbishop Ussher made an overly literalistic interpretation of the date of the creation. Even if the ages given in the genealogies of the Bible can be calculated accurately to give dates for Noah or for Adam, this still does not imply that we can calculate the date of the creation of light to six days before. I would argue that the first two chapters of Genesis are intended to tell us more about the purpose of creation and the nature of the creator rather than the exact order and date. I am therefore prepared to accept the label of  'Old-Earth Creationist' and to accept a possible date for the creation of the earth at over 13 billion years ago.
 
Of course I would still want to argue that the Bible is the word of God that should be read literally. Yet I find the Young-Earh creationists to be a little disturbing in their dogged adherence to such an early date in the face of very significant scientific evidence.
 
While we should not accept everything that scientists claim as 'proven fact', neither should we be scared of science when done within its proper bounds. While the YEC's claim to have rebuttals to much of the 'scientific evidence' for an old earth, it does appear to me to be 'special pleading' bound by a dogmantic and literalistic reading of Scripture. These are the kind of arguments that are usually called 'fundamentalist'.
 
A helpful article by Michael Jensen on 'Fundamentalism' was also released this week on the ABC religion website. Michael warns against the person who claims that their view is purely objective and rational - whether based on Scripture or something else (like Science). Such a person is not prepared to consider the alternative argument. A humble Christianity will always be prepared to consider the merits of the alternative argument - even when it might contradict certain cherished presuppositions or conclusions.
 
Unfortunately the conversation on the radio this morning sounded like a conversation between two different kinds of 'fundamentalists' - although I do think that the Christian was a bit more polite.

Stephen Hawking's new book critiqued by Alister McGrath

Stephen Hawking, the internationally respected scientist, has published a new book, The Grand Design, which famously (already!) declares, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."


There is a substantial review and critique by English theologian Alister McGrath (whose first doctorate was in Molecular Biology). I have published some of this review at the GodTalkatUWS blog.

The original article can be found HERE.

Richard Dawkins debates John Lennox on 'The God Delusion'

I have recently been thinking about the relationship between Science and Christianity in seeking to answer the question of 'hasn't science disproved Christianity?' (See http://www.godtalkatuws.blogspot.com/.) One of the most famous debates in recent times on the topic was between Professor Richard Dawkins (of Oxford) and Profesor John Lennox (also of Oxford). Held at the University of Alabama in Birmingham in 2008. The topic was specifically the title of Dawkins' book, The God Delusion.

The video can be found here.  The whole debate goes for an hour and 40 minutes (153 MB!). Let me know what you think.

You may be interested to have a look at some of the other work Dawkins is doing. Here is a report on Dawkins' crusade regarding Faith Schools. A series of videos called Faith Schools Menace was released on August 18th.

His own website is here, and his related founndation: "The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering."  Sounds like a crusade to me. No wonder people are calling him a 'fundamentalist'!