Richard’s critique of Andy Steiger’s talk:

Good points:


• he exposed the flat earth myth <Medieval “Flat Earth” Belief: Another Evolutionist Fallacy!>

• he pointed out that science grew out of a “Judaeo-Christian” worldview <Science: Child of the Biblical Worldview>

• he talked about Jesus at the end (more of this would have been better, since “the hope within us” really depends on Jesus, not on academic arguments for God’s existence)

Other points:


• he appears to accept the “Big Bang” — but Christians should be aware of what that theory actually teaches <“Big Bang”: The Implausible Explosion!>

• he referred to the Bible and nature as both being books of God — but this “two-book” thesis is prone to a lot of abuse these days (by Hugh Ross and many others). The speculative historical reconstructions of scientists observing a fallen created order and interpreting their data within a philosophical framework at odds with the Bible must not be put on the same level as God’s Word itself.

• he referred to the leader of the Human Genome Project as a Christian. Well, Francis S. Collins is indeed a professed Christian but one who believes in evolution and thinks that Genesis 1-11 is poetry. Not a great example. I suspect that many of Steiger’s “Christian” Nobel prize winners may be equally poor examples of Bible-believing Christians.

• I don’t think the “conflict thesis” (wrong as Draper and White were) can be dismissed so simply. Whatever historians might say, the fact is that there are many noted scientists these days who are strongly opposed to “religion”, some violently so. There is a conflict, and we need to address the points of conflict, not gloss over them — or worse, buy into the common scientific errors such as evolution, the “Big Bang,” and millions of years.