Saturday, March 7, 2015

Carson qualified to critique the "Scientific" Consensus on Human Origins



Ben Carson, the former neurosurgeon who is running for president, made waves this week when he denied evolutionary “science” and affirmed “creationism” in an interview. The response to Carson has been culturally revealing. He was immediately labeled some kind of religious zealot and castigated for disagreeing with the so-called “scientific consensus”. 

Back in 2008, the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” persuasively contended the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution and the modern evolutionary synthesis as a "scientific conspiracy to keep God out of the nation's laboratories and classrooms.” No matter your position on creationism (or intelligent design), before you buy the so-called “scientific consensus” Carson is getting mocked for criticizing, see that film and do some reading on how modern origins studies are being conducted, and by whom. 

As for Carson getting ridiculed because he is some stripe of creationist, I think he’s pretty qualified to give an analysis. Carson was a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics, and he was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. At age 33, he became the youngest major division director in the hospital's history as director of pediatric neurosurgery. He was also a co-director of the Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center. He specialized in traumatic brain injuries, brain and spinal cord tumors, achondroplasia, neurological and congenital disorders, craniosynostosis, epilepsy, and trigeminal neuralgia. Furthermore, several scientific organizations and fellowships have given him awards and inducted them in to their halls of fame, not to mention he has 38 honorary doctorates for his contributions to modern brain surgery. See his full Wiki page here. 

Oh, I don’t know, I think he’s probably qualified to critique the “scientific consensus” on most things. 

The fact a man like Carson is getting attacked about this matter of origins, reveals how strong the suppression of true scientific work and discovery has become today. No one will benefit from the way things are in this arena.


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Bavinck on The Relationship Between Scripture and the Church




By way of comparing the Roman Catholic and Protestant (Reformed) views of Scripture's relationship with the Church, Herman Bavinck provided a helpful statement (see full treatise here):  


Hence, the relationship between Scripture and the church is totally different in Protestantism than in Roman Catholicism.  In Rome’s view the church is anterior to Scripture; the church is not built upon Scripture, but Scripture arose from the church; Scripture does indeed need the church, but the church does not need Scripture. The Reformation, however, again put the church on the foundation of Scripture and elevated Scripture high above the church. Not the church but Scripture, the Word of God, became the means of grace par excellence. Even the sacrament was subordinated to the Word and had neither meaning nor power apart from that Word. Now, in accordance with Christ’s ordinance, that Word was indeed administered in the midst of the congregation of believers by the minister, but this did not alter the fact that that Word was [also] put into everyone’s hands, that it was plain to everyone who studied it with a desire for salvation, that it exerted its power not only when it was proclaimed in public but also when it was studied and read at home. In that way Christians, who accepted that Word with a believing heart, were liberated from sacerdotalism. No longer did any person or thing stand between them and Christ. By faith they appropriated the whole of salvation, and in the sacrament they received the sign and seal of that reality. Thus the Reformation changed the Roman Catholic doctrine of the means of grace.