Back a few posts, the Owl noted that some readers find his writing too hard to understand. That is at least partly my fault. A good writer tries to keep it simple and direct. It’s also because of the subject matter: theology just isn’t always simple and direct. Please forgive if his entry only makes matters worse.
I had sent my friend Ken a passage from Barth’s Church Dogmatics (III.3,477ff.). He pleaded: Is there a way to make it a little clearer for someone like me? I sent him the following:
Continue reading “Chaos, Schmaos”
A few days ago the Owl ventured some remarks about that old
bugaboo, Science and Religion. By now, one would think there is nothing fresh left
to say on the subject. In spite of that we ask the reader to indulge us on an
even more seductive canard, the authority of Charles Darwin, that flies in the
teeth of the creation stories in Genesis. Sophomores like to point out there
are two narratives on the subject in Genesis; the Biblical account is
contradictory on its face.
Actually, there are at least four accounts of creation in
the Bible—one in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, and another in God’s reply to
Job. This is not the place for elaborate exegesis; only to address the obvious:
that one can’t talk long about science and religion without Darwin’s name
coming up. The fact is, there is a definite conflict between Christian faith
and what is called Darwinism, but it has nothing to do with Genesis.
Continue reading “Darwin and Dread”