I've been a bit behind on blogging recently because work has been uber-busy and because I'm trying to spend extra time studying for my licensing exams. At some point, I want to make some excellent comments about the films The Book of Eli and The Secret of Kells. Both have very nice spiritual elements. This is a good review of Eli, exploring some of these elements. And I first became interested in the film after this article (plus, Denzel is my favorite actor, and I'll basically see whatever he's in). I would say I enjoyed Kells more, but Eli was definitely powerful (although clearly more bloody). But I recommend both if you have the chance for either.
So you all don't start getting withdrawls from my posts (because I know people hang so much on every one of my posts and words :) ), here's some interesting articles that I recommend:
How the Early Church Read the Bible (I like the comments about a self-focused Gospel--it actually seems to tap into some of the themes of Eli)
Spiritual Lives All Their Own (about kids' spiritualities)
Would a Religious Conversion Change Your Brain? (emphasizes that it isn't nature v. nurture--they work together)
Missional Community Formation (emphasizing that false boundaries of faith traditions are not terribly helpful)
The Battle Lines Over Justice (again emphasizing the stupidity of some of these boundaries)
Believing in God and Evolution (Gasp!)
And then there's the humorous, not safe for work photo that might offend some, but that I find hilarious.
Judging by that review for "Believing in God and Evolution," it seems awful!
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me that people can get away with statements such as:
"The fossil record has provided evidence of compelling transitional species such as whales with feet. DNA provides an irrefutable digital record of the relatedness of all living things."
This reveals the author's lack of familiarity with both the fossil record and the principles of genetics. The intro says he is a "science-and-religion scholar." I don't know what exactly that means, but he doesn't seem like an actual SCIENTIST.
I mean he doesn't even seem to understand the definition of evolution that scientists use. The theory inherently dismisses the possibility of an involvement of a God by stipulating that life is the result of random chance. The minute you say God uses that as mechanism to create, you become a creationist. And even if you overlook the oxymoronic nature of theistic evolutionism, the scientific evidence does not bode well for that view.
If you really want to reconcile the Bible with science, I would recommend looking at resources from Reasons To Believe:
www.reasons.org
The paucity of transition forms in the fossil record, the sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record, as well as the latest phylogenetic analyses studies, all work against the evolutionary model. If the academic establishment was not stacked with people like Dawkins who impose their materialistic bias on the evidence, evolution would be out the door. But as is often the case in science, it would probably take a generational shift for new evidence to overpower old entrenched beliefs and biases.