Gap of the gods

I don’t have anything to write, other than my swapping the words around in the title, which I couldn’t resist…  just wanted to share the excellent image I saw on this article

I love this because it’s a great parody of those arguments from personal incredulity/complexity, AKA god of the gaps. The image speaks for itself, so I don’t need to write anything further here.

creationist_wheel_of_misfortune

Advertisements

About Jerome

I am a senior C# developer in Johannesburg, South Africa. I am also a recovering addict, who spent nearly eight years using methamphetamine. I write on my recovery blog about my lessons learned and sometimes give advice to others who have made similar mistakes, often from my viewpoint as an atheist, and I also write some C# programming articles on my programming blog.
This entry was posted in Skepticism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Gap of the gods

  1. Gerhard Lemmer says:

    I like this article. And its source. However, I hate the common incorrect naming of specialized hypothesis to their generalized versions.

    I’m a creationist (I believe God created). I’m not a young-earth creationist, though (I don’t hypothesize mankind is only 6000 years old, nor that the creation act took six days of 24 hours) and indeed I think their theology tends to be comparably bad to their science[^footnote 1]. In stead I’m a proponent of the branch of old-earth creationism which believes the Bible clearly doesn’t tell us anything (except to provide very loose minimum bounds) about the age of mankind, the earth or creation nor does it tell us much about the time the creation event took (except that it tells us creation is still ongoing). Therefore, we should defer to science if we want to know the age of mankind/the earth/

    I consider evolution well nigh certain (because it is scientifically obvious and I don’t see any Biblical problem with the statement that species evolve). But I don’t agree with Darwinian evolution. The moral implications of Darwinian evolution is incompatible with the Bible and the mechanism of Darwinian evolution is incompatible with both contemporary genetics and contemporary information theory. In stead I’m currently researching emergence theory as a candidate for my leading theory of evolution.

    [^footnote 1]: “Obviously” Gen. 1 claims creation took six days and is now finished… Well, no, read again. (Compare Gen 1:3-5 with Gen 1:14-18, NASB.) Gen 1 clearly gives at least two different definitions of the word “day” and of the word “light” in the same chapter in our modern translations (I’ve heard from someone I generally trust – but have not yet verified the claim – that in the Hebrew, Gen 1 explicitly uses four different definitions of the word day!) I’d say it’s actually more obvious that Gen 1 doesn’t make much of a claim at all about the duration of the creation event, except: The rest of the Bible often states that God never “rests” in the sense that He is never not busy working in His creation and that God will one day recreate the earth and everything on it. The confessions of unity (Calvinist confessions) states somewhere (though I’ll need to go look it up again, now that I refer to this, I may be wrong here) that God creates, sustains and recreates. Therefore the seventh day of Gen 1 hasn’t yet started! What does Gen 1 tell us? It tells us: 1. God created. 2. The properties of the Triune God. (See John 1, 1 John 1 and the book of Revelations.) To conclude my problem with the six day hypothesis (or any derivations or generalizations of it, like gap theory – not to be confused with “gap of the Gods”), I consider it about as obvious from Gen 1 that God created in six days as from an experiment with toy cars that a resultant force is required to maintain a constant velocity.
    As for the age of mankind: 6000 years is derived from Biblical genealogies. However, you need to use genealogies that aren’t in the genre of chronicles. (Most genealogies in the Bible has the goal to tell us something about the person who’s genealogy it is, not about his ancestors. For example the genealogy of Christ in Mark 1 contains a few errors which whould’ve been obvious to his original target audience. Mark uses this errors to make – rather than prove – claims about Jesus.) Furthermore, even chronicles aren’t exactly equivalent to modern genealogies and I’ve heard – though still need to verify this – that it was acceptable to claim “X is the father of Y”, while that is false and a true statement would’ve been “X is the ancestor of Y” if writing out the generations between X and Y would’ve been too tedious or expensive (remember paper and skin was expensive and writing on tablets or rock is very labor intensive) and the generations between X and Y were not considered historically important.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s