From: Wong Wie Khiong Why not every scientist worships at Darwin's feet
Ada article pendek dan bagus yang berhubungan dengan Evolution, yang ditulis oleh John Lennox (bukan John Lennon). John Lennox is professor of mathematics and fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford University. http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/why-not-every-scientist-worships-at-darwins-feet-20080818-3x8u.html?page=-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not every scientist worships at Darwin's feet a.. John Lennox b.. August 18, 2008 Next year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On The Origin Of Species. The momentous occasion will be celebrated with new books, articles, documentaries and editorials. One commentator has called for a public holiday in Britain to honour Darwin - the "humble Shrewsbury family man who changed the world forever". For some, this anniversary celebrates the high point of human liberation from stultifying religion and superstition, our freedom from past theological "delusions". For others, it is more complicated. The leading atheist Richard Dawkins, speaking of this God delusion, as he calls it, offers a succinct summary of Darwin's theory. "Given sufficient time, the non-random survival of hereditary entities . will generate complexity, diversity, beauty, and an illusion of design so persuasive that it is almost impossible to distinguish from deliberate intelligent design." The power of evolution to simulate the illusion of design, says Dawkins, is threatening to what he suggestively calls a "certain kind of mind". Mostly he means unscientific, naive or stupid. But things aren't so simple. Scattered among the world's top scientists are those who do believe in a conscious intention behind nature's processes. I think of people such as Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, and Professor Bill Phillips, winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997. The presence of such people poses awkward questions for the view that evolutionary theory and a sophisticated scientific brain lead inexorably towards atheism. There must be more to the so-called "science versus God" story than this. Indeed, the fact that there are brilliant scientists who believe in God and brilliant scientists who don't makes it clear that the conflict is not a simplistic one between science and religion, but between opposing world views - naturalism and theism. Naturalism opposes supernaturalism and insists that the natural world exists without incursion from outside, or as Carl Sagan put it: "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever shall be." The theistic view finds expression in the opening words of Genesis: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Theism understands the universe not to be a closed system, but a creation, initiated and maintained by God. The Genesis statement is a statement of belief, not a statement of science. This is precisely the case with Sagan's assertion as well. He is expressing a personal belief that emanates from a world view, rather than science. When we ask ourselves whether science has sounded the death knell of God, we are really asking: "Which world view does science support, naturalism or theism?" One scientist views images captured by the Hubble telescope of the unimaginably large scale of the universe and remains convinced of the random nature of a godless existence. Another stares through a scanning tunnelling microscope at the unimaginably small and complex entities of molecular biology and feels compelled to worship the creator. It isn't the science itself that is definitive for the question of the divine. The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that science simply cannot "adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature". For Gould, it was a mistake to apply scientific principles to questions of metaphysics. In 2009, when the champagne is uncorked in celebration of Darwin's legacy, we might pause to consider the presuppositions we bring to the question of what his theory tells us about God. There are essentially only two options. Either the wonder of human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a creator. It remains a mystery to me why some people claim it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second. John Lennox is professor of mathematics and fellow in the philosophy of science at Oxford University. He is a visiting scholar of the Centre for Public Christianity. Tomorrow he will take part in an IQ2 debate on the statement "We'd be better off without religion", at 6.45pm in the City Recital Hall. The Sydney Morning Herald =================================================== From: KabarBaik His Very Presence I was in a restaurant once and sat at a table next to a man and his wife who were eating dinner together. There was no conversation between them. No gestures. No eye contact. There was only silence as the husband was eating with one hand and holding a book that captivated him in the other. He was caught up in reading and missing the relationship that waited before him. Don't we do that with Jesus? We read books about Jesus, we watch movies about Jesus, and we sing about Jesus. We do things for Jesus, we say things for Jesus and we go places for Jesus. So often we miss the presence of Jesus and what Jesus is most interested in... our relationship with Him. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20) from : Stephen Burke's note ===================================================== From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nobody Knows CONCERNING THAT DAY AND HOUR, NOBODY KNOWS "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father" (Matthew 24:36). "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father. Keep looking, keep awake, for you do not know when the appointed time is" (Mark 13:32-33). Most bibles translate these two verses more or less as above. But the Greek does not say this at all. The Greek word translated 'knows' is oiden . This is the 3rd person singular perfect tense of eido, which means 'I SEE' like the Latin 'Video'. The perfect tense is used for completed actions in the past. So oiden literally means 'he has seen' . Now either this Greek word 'oiden' is in the present tense or it is in the past tense. To quote Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon under 'Eido': 'To know:- the perfect tense "Oida", I have seen, as a present tense verb, in the sense I know, for what one has seen one knows.' What this means is that: 'Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows' is a linguistically possible sense of the Greek, and this is where the confusion has arisen. But it is not what the Greek actually says, no, the exact literal translation is: 'Concerning that day or the hour nobody has SEEN (with his mind)' This being meant in the sense of 'Concerning that day or the hour nobody has known.' Young's Literal Translation of the Bible has: 'Nobody has known', and ironically the Greek Interlinear Translation of the Watchtower, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation has 'Nobody has known'! 36 About but the day that and hour no one has known, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, if not the Father only (Matthew 24 - Watchtower Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures) 32 And concerning that day and the hour, no one hath known, no even the messengers who are in the heaven, not even the son, except the father (Mark 13 - Young's Literal Translation). 'No one has known', or 'Nobody has seen' has a whole different connotation from 'no one knows' or 'nobody knows', because it is actually saying 'nobody has known in the past'. So with the exact translation, it is evident that Jesus was simply saying that no creation had yet been granted a knowledge of the day or the hour from time indefinite up to that time. In any event these two scriptures, seeing as they are written in the past tense cannot be a prohibition on future knowledge of that 'day' and that 'hour'. * No statement about past knowledge can be a prohibition on future knowledge * No man knows for certain the date of his marriage until he has become engaged Jesus likewise did not know the date of Armageddon, which is the date of His marriage to his new covenant bride until he had proposed to them. Furthermore we cannot ignore the words of the prophet Amos who says... "The sovereign Lord Jehovah will not do a single thing without revealing his confidential matter to his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). Obviously at Armageddon God does quite a few very important things and the timing of these things is a confidential matter of his. "Let us rejoice and be overjoyed and let us give him the glory because the marriage of the lamb has arrived and his wife has prepared herself ...... Happy are those invited to the evening meal of the lambs marriage" (Revelation 19:7,9). Members of the new covenant are these happy ones, the evening meal of the lamb's marriage is the coronation of the kings in the Kingdom of God. As Paul said: 1 Now as for the times and the seasons, brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know quite well that the Lord's day is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying: Peace and security! then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant woman; and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that that day should come upon you as it would thieves (who operate under a cloak of darkness), 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. So the Lord's day which in this context is the one that lasts 1,000 years (is it?) comes as a thief in the night to those in the darkness. But to those in the light it does not come as a thief in the night, it comes in the day, so they can see it coming. It does not come upon them as the day comes upon thieves, because they do not operate under the cover of darkness, they have nothing to hide. So those who walk in the light plainly see this day coming.
