Pericles,
Paraphrasing or interpreting your question a bit, you ask, does belief in creation (of a creator) lead to belief in Christianity or does Christianity lead to creation? Yes, I think it is potentially both, as one should inform the other. I see Christianity and the Bible as somewhat synonymous. Six-day creation is a clear biblical teaching. It was the standard view accepted within the church as a whole until roughly the nineteenth Century.

Darwin's teaching rocked the church. It made a sizeable impact on how the world thinks. And after more than 150 years, the church is still coming to terms with how to deal with the issue. But I don't believe Darwin had it right. Darwinism is a form of naturalism which relates to atheist thinking. Obviously, atheism is not theologically acceptable. I don't see how Darwinism has brought us any scientific advances. Philosophically, it hasn't brought comfort to anyone except to the atheist.

So as we aim to seek truth, we do so through good philosophy, good theology, as well as applying good science. These should compliment each other.

The empirical evidence does point to a creator or intelligence beyond this world. ['His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.' (Rom1:20)] You can see this in the example of Antony Flew, who was converted from his atheism when seeing evidence of design within living things. Even the atheist Dawkins talks about the 'appearance of design' and then tries to explain it away.

On the theological side, recently the well known Reformed theologian, Sproule, came out saying that the penny has finally dropped in his mind, and he now sees the importance of Christians accepting six-day creation. If space permitted I could mention movement from the RC side. In philosophical and theological thought, the wheels turn slowly, but the move back to biblical orthodoxy is at hand. The situation is progressing from what it was in say the 1960s, when Darwin reigned virtually unchallenged.

I view Christians believing in evolution as somewhat inconsistent, but we're all striving humbly for perfection in our thinking and our theology without anyone being quite there.

You are correct, Dan S Merengue, my comments on the seriousness of your belief were somewhat flippant, for which I apologize.

I do find your responses a little disappointing, though. To elide the questions of "which came first for you, the Bible or Christianity" by claiming they are in fact the same question does smack of avoidance.

>>...does belief in creation (of a creator) lead to belief in Christianity or does Christianity lead to creation? Yes, I think it is potentially both, as one should inform the other<<

That is like saying you came first and last in the race, which can only happen if you are the only runner. This, of course, renders the actual race itself null and void.

>>Six-day creation is a clear biblical teaching. It was the standard view accepted within the church as a whole until roughly the nineteenth Century<<

I don't find this "pleading from history" particularly persuasive.

Aristotle (and later Galen) believed that the "four humours" governed our health, which led directly to the practice of blood-letting to counter fever. This also was a practice that "was a standard view until roughly the nineteenth century", but was eventually found to be harmful.

>>Darwinism is a form of naturalism which relates to atheist thinking.<<

Darwin was a Christian, with Christian beliefs. It is interesting that the principal charge levelled against him by Christians wishing to discredit his religious beliefs is that his research led him away from Genesis. A somewhat circular argument, in my mind, as there are many Christians who are comfortable with both evolution and their chosen religion.

>>The empirical evidence does point to a creator or intelligence beyond this world.<<

It would be interesting to understand more about your employment of the word "empirical" in this context. Many regard the work performed by (ancient-earth) geologists to represent "empirical evidence". How does your "empirical" differ from theirs?

I'm not sure how Flew furthers your cause. He explicitly denied that he believed in the Christian (or Muslim, as it happens) version of God.

More later, perhaps.

Why must faith conform with the empirical?

'Empirical' means "pertaining to or derived from experience or experiments" and our human experience was never meant to provide us the truth, only to biologically survive and prosper in this world, which it does quite well.

For survival of the body, one should use ordinary knowledge, derived by ordinary experiences through our senses and brain.

For transcending the limitations of the body, one should use supreme knowledge, derived by the grace of God to a few souls who were pure enough to receive it.

Two different goals - two different means - no conflict!

Pericles,
To try and summarise, I see this article as discussing the defence of Christian faith in the face of atheism. While I can agree with many of Peter's comments in this article, I would disagree with some positions he's shown in others.

In discussing the Christian faith, it is necessary to first seek an authentic representation of the historical faith. My contention is that 'six-day creation' is the revealed view of history according to the Bible, and thus the strongest position from which to defend the faith in the face of other world views..

When I said that six-day creation was the standard view within the church for its first 1800 years, this was an argument for the authenticity of the position. Given that the Scriptures derive from God, and that God is capable of communicating his message clearly, it would seem odd that God might mislead the church for 1800 hundred years with a poorly construed message and a misunderstanding of Genesis. Rather, the message communicated in Genesis has always been clear. Unfortunately, there are those Christians persuaded by Darwin's teaching to accept evolution rather than creation, who will remain clouded in compromise.

I said that the empirical evidence points to a creator, and you ask about my use of the word 'empirical'.

Empirical evidence doesn't differ according to person. The body of empirical evidence is the same for everyone. Yet the interpretation of the same evidence can differ markedly depending on one's philosophical perspective or perception. I state (as in Rom 1:20) that the evidence, especially the apparent design of created things, is sufficient to reasonably persuade anyone of the existence of God, as was apparent to Antony Flew.

In saying that the evidence is sufficiently obvious and persuasive doesn't imply that it will allow us to construct an ultimate proof of God's existence. Nor am I claiming that such evidence is sufficient to illuminate someone with regard to the other truths of the Christian faith. So someone like Flew would need to be persuaded of much else before he would announce himself as a Christian believer.

For me, that's the nub of the issue, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I see this article as discussing the defence of Christian faith in the face of atheism<<

As an atheist, I could far better understand deism if there were only one religion, and the discussions were along the lines of "religion: yes or no?" Would Mr Sellick's arguments be the same, do you think, if it were a defence in the face of, say, Islam? Or Jainism?

Surely it would be more appropriate to defend his particular belief system against other belief systems? After all, they are the institutions who are competing for clientele, not atheism. Atheism does not have the equivalent of a bible, or a sabbath day, or a formal meeting place, or demand tithes etc.

Hence my question to you on the manner in which you arrived at your version of Christianity. Did you evaluate the alternatives, or was it purely your cultural background that led you Christianity in the first place? And once there, what was it that determined your decision to adhere strictly to its particular standard text, in favour of the standard geological and anthropological etc. texts?

My contention - and the reason for my curiosity, albeit occasionally impatiently expressed - is that you are at the "literal interpretation" end of the Christian belief spectrum. And it occurs to me that the answer to these questions will help towards understanding the motivation behind all extremism-based religious conflicts - militant Sunni vs militant Shia, militant Catholic vs militant Protestant etc. Because only when something is understood can you try to address its core dynamics, and hope to bring about change. And if the world is interested in countering the rise of an aggressive Islam, for example, it desperately needs to address the disease, rather than the symptoms.

I trust you will take these questions in the spirit of honest enquiry that they are framed. I genuinely do not understand why people place so much store in their religious beliefs. And I genuinely would like to understand more of the mindset that creates them.