Stoker, Bram and Elizabeth Kostova. Dracula. New York: Back Bay Books, 2005. $10.99.
I picked up this classic horror tale recently with a gift card from my baby son (really from his mom). I've seen a couple of the movie adaptations of the book, and the concept has always interested me. It was a good exercise for my imagination.
Stoker's book is amazing as the fountainhead of so much in this genre. Unfortunately for me, the horror genre has changed dramatically from what it was in the Victorian period, when Stoker wrote. I noticed early on that I was not really affected much emotionally by the tale. This may be due, in part, to my familiarity with movies that have told the story in similar ways, but I think it was largely due to the fact that our modern culture has made horror so much more horrific. Of course, if I were really in Jonathan Harker's shoes in the early part of the book, trapped in Castle Dracula with the Count and his creatures, the experience would be terrible. I guess the imagery used simply fails to excite my modern and inured mind. That said, I was never once bored throughout the 400 pages!
One of the interesting issues surrounding the interpretation of Dracula is the extent to which the story is that of science and modernity overcoming medieval superstition, or even of West over East. This theme appears so often that it seems Stoker must have intended it. I can see how this would have been especially powerful to readers in the time of its first printing, but today the "modernity" present in the book, when thought of in this way, is often laughable. Professor Van Helsing, the symbol of modernity and logic, practices hypnotism, consults ancient superstition, and seems to believe in alchemy. This is not to say that modernity/science should not triumph over superstition but to point out that the hubris associated with any period's estimation of its own learning is dangerous. We have discovered too often that our modern ideas give way to better ideas to come and are sometimes found out to be mere superstition after all.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
A New Kind of Church
Malphurs, Aubrey. A New Kind of Church: Understanding Models of Ministry for the 21st Century. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007. $15.99
In this book, Malphurs has 2 goals: to address criticism of new-model churches (seeker, emerging, small-group driven, etc.) and to promote biblical understanding of church, culture, and change that help churches undergo the necessary changes so that they can remain active, or renew activity, in the great overall mission of the church - making disciples.
Malphurs does an excellent job of educating the reader about the fundamental issues involved in this debate. This is to be expected from a well-respected seminary professor. He is very critical of those who have been arguing vociferously against changes in church models. He criticizes their ungodly, angry way of expressing themselves as well as the simple fact that large parts of their argument are either not biblically founded or actually violate biblical teaching.
Malphurs is ultimately in favor of these new models, though he does offer some caution to them. I suppose I should clarify - he is in favor of necessary changes in the way church is done in order to reach a culture that has changed enough that large segments of it hold no affinity at all for the majority of churches. New model churches are trying to effect those changes, so he supports them.
The last chapter of the book contains a simple explanation of how churches can and should go about changing for the better. This is good, but it is essentially an advertisement for another of Malphurs' books, Advanced Strategic Planning. I guess I'll need to read that one, too.
Being in the younger generation on this issue, I was not strongly challenged by this book, though I could see how it could work wonders for hardened anti-change elements within the church. However, I seriously doubt they will read this or, if they do, give it a fair reading. Even so, I learned a great deal about leadership through this sort of model change.
In this book, Malphurs has 2 goals: to address criticism of new-model churches (seeker, emerging, small-group driven, etc.) and to promote biblical understanding of church, culture, and change that help churches undergo the necessary changes so that they can remain active, or renew activity, in the great overall mission of the church - making disciples.
Malphurs does an excellent job of educating the reader about the fundamental issues involved in this debate. This is to be expected from a well-respected seminary professor. He is very critical of those who have been arguing vociferously against changes in church models. He criticizes their ungodly, angry way of expressing themselves as well as the simple fact that large parts of their argument are either not biblically founded or actually violate biblical teaching.
Malphurs is ultimately in favor of these new models, though he does offer some caution to them. I suppose I should clarify - he is in favor of necessary changes in the way church is done in order to reach a culture that has changed enough that large segments of it hold no affinity at all for the majority of churches. New model churches are trying to effect those changes, so he supports them.
The last chapter of the book contains a simple explanation of how churches can and should go about changing for the better. This is good, but it is essentially an advertisement for another of Malphurs' books, Advanced Strategic Planning. I guess I'll need to read that one, too.
Being in the younger generation on this issue, I was not strongly challenged by this book, though I could see how it could work wonders for hardened anti-change elements within the church. However, I seriously doubt they will read this or, if they do, give it a fair reading. Even so, I learned a great deal about leadership through this sort of model change.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Mutations and Increasing Genetic Information - An Analogy
A good friend recently put forward the genetic mutation that causes Down's Syndrome (a doubling of the 21st chromosome) as an example of a mutation resulting in an increase in genetic information. This is important because such increases in genetic information are vital if evolution as it is understood today has really occurred (the genome of a bacterium is far smaller than that of a higher animal, such that genetic information must have increased over time if some past bacterium evolved into today's higher animals). In addition, Intelligent Design advocates routinely argue that no such increases of information do occur, essentially destroying the premise upon which the evolutionary process is based.
There may be other examples of supposed increases of genetic information, but I believe I have a metaphor and an understanding of information that thoroughly refutes this one example (Down's Syndrome).
Imagine a library with thousands of books, all original, no duplicates. This is similar to the genome of a human, though really less extensive. Now, the Down's Syndrome duplication is like receiving a second copy of one of those books. At first, this does seem like an increase in information, since you now have more pages, more words, and more letters in the library. But this is deceptive. It is deceptive because information is not in essence a matter of numbers and letters but of meaning. Having two copies of John Calvin's Institutes (one of the larger works in my own library) or Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat (a very short work) does not increase the total meaning contained in the library. As you read the two copies, you cannot learn anything new from the second that you couldn't from the first. In fact, unless you have some sentimental affection for the duplicated book, you could easily see how the duplicate is a problem for the library, taking up space better used for some other original work.
Now, an evolutionist might argue that the duplicate could evolve into another new book. He may concede that it may not contain new information, but argue that it does contain the building blocks for new information. Surely, Calvin's Institutes contains enough letters and words to create Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. The problem is this: according to evolution this must occur in a non-directed process. I could arrange the Institutes into any number of shorter works myself, but that is a completely different thing. Also, this supposition results in innumerable steps in between the Institutes and the Cat in the Hat that are gibberish, which we do not see in the genetics of any creature, but we should because this process should be on-going. Finally, this process could only create books shorter than or equal to the original, so that more complicated forms and functions cannot derive from less complicated ones, contrary to evolutionary theory.
I can think of other problems with this example of increasing genetic information, but I believe that the above argument is sufficient to reject it. What say you?
There may be other examples of supposed increases of genetic information, but I believe I have a metaphor and an understanding of information that thoroughly refutes this one example (Down's Syndrome).
Imagine a library with thousands of books, all original, no duplicates. This is similar to the genome of a human, though really less extensive. Now, the Down's Syndrome duplication is like receiving a second copy of one of those books. At first, this does seem like an increase in information, since you now have more pages, more words, and more letters in the library. But this is deceptive. It is deceptive because information is not in essence a matter of numbers and letters but of meaning. Having two copies of John Calvin's Institutes (one of the larger works in my own library) or Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat (a very short work) does not increase the total meaning contained in the library. As you read the two copies, you cannot learn anything new from the second that you couldn't from the first. In fact, unless you have some sentimental affection for the duplicated book, you could easily see how the duplicate is a problem for the library, taking up space better used for some other original work.
Now, an evolutionist might argue that the duplicate could evolve into another new book. He may concede that it may not contain new information, but argue that it does contain the building blocks for new information. Surely, Calvin's Institutes contains enough letters and words to create Dr. Seuss's Cat in the Hat. The problem is this: according to evolution this must occur in a non-directed process. I could arrange the Institutes into any number of shorter works myself, but that is a completely different thing. Also, this supposition results in innumerable steps in between the Institutes and the Cat in the Hat that are gibberish, which we do not see in the genetics of any creature, but we should because this process should be on-going. Finally, this process could only create books shorter than or equal to the original, so that more complicated forms and functions cannot derive from less complicated ones, contrary to evolutionary theory.
I can think of other problems with this example of increasing genetic information, but I believe that the above argument is sufficient to reject it. What say you?
Monday, February 02, 2009
The New Answers Book
Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible. Green Forest, Ark: Master Books, 2006. $14.99.
The New Answers Book is produced by Answers in Genesis, a Christian group that holds to a Young-earth creationist perspective, researching and teaching in order to promote that perspective. I've seen a couple of their videos and have always found their stuff to be interesting, even compelling at points, and well done. The founder of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is the editor of this book and one of the article authors. The book is a YE creationist attempt to answer the objections raised against that view by others.
Overall, the book is an excellent resource for understanding the YE creationist perspective on the available scientific data. This perspective is built upon a serious reading of Scripture, particularly Genesis chapter 1-11, using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. This reading is one that attempts to treat the Biblical text within its own linguistic setting (e.g. - reading poetry and narrative differently because they have entirely different uses in the Bible) and historical setting. This view is the one taught, by and large, by my own seminary and many other conservative theological institutions. The key here is that YE creationists first accept the Bible as true and authoritative and then take their view to the science, resulting in very different theories concerning everything from DNA to the geologic column and even light from distant galaxies. The alternative, common among moderate and liberal theologians, is to accept current scientific dogma (e.g. - the universe is 14+ billion years old and all life evolved over that period) and then read the Bible to figure out how to fit or bend the text to agree with the science. At least to me, the YE creationist view of science-theology makes more sense.
The best articles were: the two dealing with dating methods by Mark Riddle, the one concerning catastrophic plate tectonics and the flood by Andrew Snelling, that by Jason Lisle about distant starlight and the age of the universe, and the article about defense/attack structures in plants and animals by Andy McIntosh and Bodie Hodge. All of these were highly scientific, interesting, and vital for a YE view to stand up to scrutiny.
The problems with the book are mostly those of structure. Since the articles were written independently, there are frequent instances of repetitious information. However, one should expect this out of a source book like this one. The weakest article was the one by Ham answering the question, "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" The article does well to point out many quotes of Jesus dealing with other elements of Genesis 1-11 as literal/historical facts, but he then goes further and tries to show that Jesus was speaking in several Old Testament passages that specifically refer to creating in six literal days. While I still think these passages are germane to the question, since God does not contradict Himself within the Godhead, I would hesitate to make Jesus the speaker in the Old Testament unless there is a lot of clear evidence.
Finally, as you might be able to tell, I have a great affinity for the YE creationist view. It seems to me that creationists and evolutionists (and all those who hold to naturalism) are each simply choosing their ideological (one might say theological and still be quite correct) commitments and then interpreting science or the Bible accordingly. To me, as a Christian, it only makes sense to remain committed to the Bible, the authoritative and inspired and inerrant Word of God, and then approach science than to accept what science (the majority dogma known collectively as science) says and then approach the Bible. Throughout this book, the various authors repeatedly point out the dangers in accepting a compromise view of Genesis 1-11: it opens the entire Bible to the charge of fallibility and irrelevance and ultimately undermines the salvation wrought by God in Christ Jesus.
The New Answers Book is produced by Answers in Genesis, a Christian group that holds to a Young-earth creationist perspective, researching and teaching in order to promote that perspective. I've seen a couple of their videos and have always found their stuff to be interesting, even compelling at points, and well done. The founder of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is the editor of this book and one of the article authors. The book is a YE creationist attempt to answer the objections raised against that view by others.
Overall, the book is an excellent resource for understanding the YE creationist perspective on the available scientific data. This perspective is built upon a serious reading of Scripture, particularly Genesis chapter 1-11, using the grammatical-historical hermeneutic. This reading is one that attempts to treat the Biblical text within its own linguistic setting (e.g. - reading poetry and narrative differently because they have entirely different uses in the Bible) and historical setting. This view is the one taught, by and large, by my own seminary and many other conservative theological institutions. The key here is that YE creationists first accept the Bible as true and authoritative and then take their view to the science, resulting in very different theories concerning everything from DNA to the geologic column and even light from distant galaxies. The alternative, common among moderate and liberal theologians, is to accept current scientific dogma (e.g. - the universe is 14+ billion years old and all life evolved over that period) and then read the Bible to figure out how to fit or bend the text to agree with the science. At least to me, the YE creationist view of science-theology makes more sense.
The best articles were: the two dealing with dating methods by Mark Riddle, the one concerning catastrophic plate tectonics and the flood by Andrew Snelling, that by Jason Lisle about distant starlight and the age of the universe, and the article about defense/attack structures in plants and animals by Andy McIntosh and Bodie Hodge. All of these were highly scientific, interesting, and vital for a YE view to stand up to scrutiny.
The problems with the book are mostly those of structure. Since the articles were written independently, there are frequent instances of repetitious information. However, one should expect this out of a source book like this one. The weakest article was the one by Ham answering the question, "Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?" The article does well to point out many quotes of Jesus dealing with other elements of Genesis 1-11 as literal/historical facts, but he then goes further and tries to show that Jesus was speaking in several Old Testament passages that specifically refer to creating in six literal days. While I still think these passages are germane to the question, since God does not contradict Himself within the Godhead, I would hesitate to make Jesus the speaker in the Old Testament unless there is a lot of clear evidence.
Finally, as you might be able to tell, I have a great affinity for the YE creationist view. It seems to me that creationists and evolutionists (and all those who hold to naturalism) are each simply choosing their ideological (one might say theological and still be quite correct) commitments and then interpreting science or the Bible accordingly. To me, as a Christian, it only makes sense to remain committed to the Bible, the authoritative and inspired and inerrant Word of God, and then approach science than to accept what science (the majority dogma known collectively as science) says and then approach the Bible. Throughout this book, the various authors repeatedly point out the dangers in accepting a compromise view of Genesis 1-11: it opens the entire Bible to the charge of fallibility and irrelevance and ultimately undermines the salvation wrought by God in Christ Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)