George,
As mentioned by Altizer (Absolutely New Space, 2007), Newton's thinking helped set in chain a new process of radical theological thought - not only through his science but his theological understanding, "..it is Newton more than any other thinker who has given us an infinite space that is simultaneously the body of the universe and the body of God.." His unorthodox anti-Trinitarian beliefs certainly meant an uneasiness (if not, certain excommunicable heresy) within the established Church - the same Church which had also shaped his God-belief. By comparison, Alitzer is no more radical than Newton in his departure from Church orthodoxy, but instead places himself in the 21st Century rather than the 18th.

Whilst I find some of what Alitzer has written hard to grasp, he will no doubt strike a chord with many, 'When a contemporary Christian confesses the death of God he is giving witness to the fact that the Christian tradition is no longer meaningful to him, that the Word is not present in its traditional form, and that God has died in the history in which he lives'(Alitzer). His attempt to get off his theological pulpit is laudable. In more concrete terms he believes the church's concept of God today is the product of the encounter between primitive Christianity and Greek philosophy, an idol that is no longer relevant to secular culture and has been either neutralized by overexposure or rejected entirely. Ironically, Sells almost seems in agreement with this.

I can also agree with him when he says, ".. that never in my lifetime has the church been so paradoxical. On the one hand, it is seemingly stronger than ever before. On the other, it is weaker and more mindless than ever before. In all major denominations, fights are going on because fundamentalism is so extraordinarily powerful today. Fundamentalism is in ultimate conflict with the modern world.”

Relda.
I really must disagree with Altizer’s take on Newton. His idea that space was God’s sensorium, whatever that means, was a backward step to Stoicism, that removed the dividing line between creator and creature that is so firmly implanted in the Hebrew tradition. It is a short step to seeing God as the agent in the force of gravity and thus Him being a part of the mechanics of the universe. This is what I mean about the latent materialism of the West’s conception of God that makes him so vulnerable to scientific critique. I am with Laplace in saying that we have no need of that hypothesis.

Yes, I do agree with Altizer when he says that we have inherited a compromise God from the collision of the Hebrew and Greek concepts that is neither fish nor foul and that is thus the cause of modern atheism.

It does seem that fundamentalism is in conflict with the modern world but is in fact a product of it. Newton was the ultimate fundamentalist. It is interesting that among the scientists we find mostly atheists but if they are Christian they are mostly fundamentalist. It seems to come with the territory of empiricism, one really does want to have evidence instead of living by a hope in that which is unseen.

Runner,

<<You know as well as I do that their are many scientist who believe in a young earth.>>

OK. I'll admit it. I was baiting you and I knew exactly what your response was going to be too.

<<They interpret the facts differently from the evolutionist and come up with completely different answers.>>

I’m glad you raised this, because this is where Creationist “science” falls down before it even starts…

Normal Scientists:
"Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Scientists:
"Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"

And hence, the only theory that is “hopelessly flawed”, is Creationism.

<<You also know that those questioning evolution are likely to be failed at university (and schools) because many of the scientist are insecure about their dogmas which have to continually change.>>

Firstly, there is nothing 'dogmatic' about evolution at all.

Scientists are constantly putting evolution to the test. That's how they further their discoveries. It is just plain dumb to assume that it will never be proven wrong just because it hasn't yet been proven wrong. Did it ever occur to you that it may not have been proven wrong yet because it isn't?

Secondly, the only scientists who are insecure about their beliefs are Creationist scientists.

This is evident in their slipperiness; their need to plead when putting forth a case; the deceptive tactics they use, such as only telling half the story; and the dishonesty that is rife within the Creationist order, such as their false claims that the evolution videos on YouTube – using their material to demonstrate the absurdity of Creationism – were breaching copyright law, when they weren't.

<<In university they [Creationist geologists] play the game (not questioning dating methods) in order to get qualified.>>

Why wouldn't they question the dating methods? Normal scientists did, and still do. That's how we know they're reliable.

You act like the science community is an authoritative order. It's not. Scientists question other scientists all the time. That's how they make progress and develop new theories.

Continued...

...Continued

Scientists generally appreciate being questioned, as they are passionate about scientific progress.

Unlike Creationists, who are only there to push the beliefs that they will never change.

Also, we're not just talking about a few dating methods here, Runner. Where taking a LOT. There are fifteen different methods of radiometric dating alone. Different methods working on different clocks, and different principals. All of which point to the same magnitude of age.

<<Far from making it up you are obviously blinded to the fact that many scientist believe in a young earth.>>

I was more referring to all your uneducated assertions about evolution.

If I were “blinded”, then I wouldn't bother looking into the claims of Creationists.

On the contrary, not only am I a former-Creationist myself, but I've read virtually all of their scientific arguments, and every one of them can either be conclusively dis-proven; shown to be using deceptive tactics by telling half-truths; or gross displays of naïvety.

<<Simply google to find that out.>>

Speaking of Google, why can’t you use it enough to realise that you’re claims about evolution are rubbish?

Because you don’t want to.

You display the same kind of ignorance displayed by the Creationist scientists with their cherry-picking of facts. You didn’t even check the links I posted, did you?

<<Attached is a list of every kind of scientist you can think of who believe in Creation…>>

Believing in ’creation’ doesn’t always imply a belief in ‘creationism’. All Christian scientists believe in a creator. But not many of them at all, actually believe in ‘creationism’.

<<…and many of them a young earth.>>

I went looking through that link you provided, and many of the scientists mentioned don't have their interpretations published there – even the ones that have links to their biographies.

But I read many of the interpretations that were published at that website, and all of their claims (that I read) can either be dis-proved, or brought into serious question (mostly dis-proved though) by the three links I provided you with earlier – that's how I know you didn't check them out.

Peter

I am a bloke whose mind has never been disciplined enough to grasp mathematics and science, but whose soul has long sought truth and meaning. We are stilled pained by the cuckoos who fly into your nest, but I find the contributions of others ( George, Relda ...), though difficult for me to penetrate, worthwhile for the glimpses of knowledge in their light.

My prevailing interest is where "the rubber hits the road" in the domains of religion and politics. I find your pieces enlightening as they are breaking open new thought whilst based on well grounded doctrine which of course itself is founded on reflection of The Word. In a sense they are radical in the "root" sense of the word.

I have come to talk of my faith in terms of story and events under your influence. It is a language that can satiate a terrible thirst as it is an entrypoint. And one that cannot be appropriated by those who propound the negative, "we are not of God". I am yet to hear of their story. No beginning.. no end - only a big bang and an eventual whimper.

Notwithstanding my earlier comments, I say Amen to the accessible thoughts you relate from your "embryonic thesis". I hope it forms to a full and vibrant birth to add to our story, or at least, contribute a new view of it.

Best wishes

AJP

One further point worth adding is that in order to attract the interest of scientists an hypothesis must be refutable. Since you cannot construct any experiment either to replicate or refute creation it is simply of no interest scientifically. Furthermore creationism does not suggest any interesting lines of investigation which might be of scientific interest. As a 'scientific hypothesis' it is still-born.
As a scientific hypothesis evolution, on the other hand, has been enormously productive in terms of inspiring new and interesting avenues of scientific research. While no-one is trying to disprove creation as a scientific hypothesis evolution continues to be a productive hypothesis and along with the derived research from it many interesting and useful discoveries are being made every day to the benefit of humanity and our whole environment.
For my part the creationists can go on making their case as long as they like but until 'creation science' proves itself to be scientifically productive it will remain an essenitally 'non-participating' partner to the field of biological science.

Biblical Creation, on the other hand, as literature, is a powerful story of human relationships and the nature of being human. It is at once an affirmation of human sexuality and a warning that there are both blessings and dangers associated with this gift of life.
As compared to other 'creation myths' the Biblical story asserts the freedom of Adam and a certain equality in his relationship to God. Creation is a Divine gift from which the Creator steps back enough to give Adam a high degree of freedom and responsibility. It is a beautiful but challenging and disturbing story. But surely this is how it really is. We humans enjoy a high degree of freedom and have the capacity to make very significant changes to the world in which we live. Great responsibility attaches to this capacity and this freedom. Enjoy!