Creation School
Creation School is getting back to our Biblical roots, looking at topical issues from the perspective of a creator God and finding answers to those ‘awkward’ questions often asked by people who think the Bible is outdated or irrelevant …
The next round of Creation School is due to start in September. Once more we are planning to hold the meetings on Monday evenings at Aroma Coffee House, just up the road from New Life, 7:30-9:00pm. Sign up sheet at the New Life Information Desk – places are limited!
| 6 September | Genesis – Still Relevant Today? |
| 13 September | Creation in 6 Days – Really? |
| 20 September | What About Death and Suffering? |
| 27 September | Does God Really Exist Anyway? |
| 4 October | Evolution – Fact or Fantasy? |
| 11 October | How Did We Get All Those Races? |
| 18 October | How Can We Counter Racism? |
| 25 October | Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs? |
| 1 November | Why Must We Tell the Children? |
| 8 November | Of Fossils and the Flood |
| 15 November | Creation, Evangelism and Society (1) |
| 22 November | Creation, Evangelism and Society (2) |
‘Leviathan’ in the news – but can you spot the fantasy?
On the BBC news site today (30th June), there is an announcement about the discovery of a huge sea creature – which has been named ‘Leviathan’ after the creature mentioned in the Bible. As always, there is a good deal of hype, and pure fantasy mixed with the facts.
Under an artist’s impression, which shows a huge, toothy whale biting a smaller whale, we are told that the creature was (not ‘might have been’, note!) an ‘aggressive, 17m-long predator’.
Really? On what evidence? Let’s examine the claims.
- Researchers found a skull in Peru. It was huge. It had sharp teeth. It was similar to a sperm whale’s skull, but bigger and with teeth in both jaws (not just the lower, like modern sperm whales). These are observable facts. No argument there.
- It was 17 metres long. Comparing the size of the skull with that of a modern whale, it’s not an unreasonable suggestion, but since the rest of the creature’s anatomy is totally unknown, it could also be very wrong. So this is based on assumption, not (as yet) observable facts.
- It was ‘like a giant sperm whale’. Without the rest of the skeleton, this is pure speculation (although it could be true, there is as yet no observable evidence). The artist’s impression is just that, a work of someone’s imagination.
- It was an aggressive predator. This is just wishful thinking. That doesn’t make it untrue, but the article leaves the reader no room for doubt – it must be true because it had sharp teeth; it would ‘catch the prey in its huge jaws and tear it apart quickly and effectively with its giant teeth’. And yet fruit bats and pandas also have sharp teeth, to name just two modern examples; the thought of a panda pursuing a fleeing piece of bamboo aggressively is quite fascinating.
- The sediments it was found in were 12 million years old. Now, there we know differently, don’t we? After all, ‘It is written…’
Graham Pegg – 30th June 2010
| Creation, Evangelism and Society (1) |