t f p g+ YouTube icon

God Revealed in Creation

Bookmark and Share

July 25, 2010 Tags: Education

Today's video features Daniel Harrell. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.

In this video, pastor Daniel Harrell looks at how we can worship God by understanding the world around us as revelations of God’s nature. Harrell notes that, to him, faith must correspond to how things are, not merely how we wish they could be. Thus, exploring nature can be seen as a way to also explore our faith.

Harrell also notes that the idea of God revealing himself through creation is “very, very old indeed.” Scripture acknowledges it, and a long history of theologians and thinking Christians have held this perspective. Just as David marvels at creation in the Psalms and considers how his understanding of nature can influence his understanding of God, so too we can marvel at the complexity of DNA or the diversity of life or the majesty of the universe and consider how these are also manifestations of God’s character.

Commentary written by the BioLogos editorial team.


Daniel Harrell is the Senior Minister of Colonial Church in Edina, Minnesota. He is the author of the books Nature’s Witness: How Evolution Can Inspire Faith, How To Be Perfect: One Church’s Experiment with Living the Book of Leviticus, and the forthcoming Wisdom of the Saints (And Near Saints): Christian Inspiration from A-Z. He also teaches theology at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul.


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 1 of 3   1 2 3 »
conrad - #23414

July 25th 2010

Well of course Danny Harrell is correct.
A lot of things about the universe are being learned every day.

Now let me pose a question.
  NOW PUT ON YOUR THINKING CAPS!  HERE IT GOES!

  WHAT SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY HAS BEEN CALLED BY STEPHEN HAWKING THE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND?

[It’s a toughie!]    GIVE UP?
        [ it is NOT Darwinian evolution!]

WELL IT IS THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION.
  It is the remnant of the “light” of “Genesis !:3

  Christians should be very interested in that light BUT HOW MANY EVER MENTION IT OR THINK ABOUT IT?

Two sets of Nobel prizes have been awarded to people who worked on this discovery.

Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson won for detecting the light in 1964.

Then George Smoot and John Mather won for mapping the expanses within the light pattern.
These are the “expanses” God created on Day Two.

BUT HOW MUCH OF OUR DISCUSSION HERE IS ON THIS NEW MATERIAL?
YOU GET 10,000 COMMENTS ON DARWIN FOR EVERY MENTION OF THE LIGHT OF CREATION.
My friends the Bible says,... “Study ....to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”
  [Better hop to it!]


HornSpiel - #23419

July 26th 2010

conrad,

I appreciate you openness to God’s leading and original suggestions to biblical interpretation. However I am not convinced by some your assertions,

What makes you so sure that “the expanses within the light pattern .... are the “expanses” God created on Day Two”?

Seems like you are reading the Bible like a coded book of hidden knowledge. Certainly such expanses were never envisaged by the original author or audience.

This make me seriously doubt your interpretation.


Papalinton - #23424

July 26th 2010

Hi Hornspiel

I agree with you.
Conrad’s proposition is misplaced.  His has good intentions but I’m not sure he understands the unintended consequences of linking the writings of bronze/iron age peoples with some form of relevancy of scripture for today. 

Cheers


conrad - #23425

July 26th 2010

The meaning has remained a mystery until NOW.

It is understandable by looking at the work of George Smoot.
It is revealed to us now but was wrapped in mystery for previous generations.

Briefly,... a cloud of particles under the force of gravity will coalesce into interesting clumps ONLY IF PATTERN IS INTRODUCED.

Otherwise it will collect into a single clump and be a boring black hole.

God knew how important that was. He gave it DAY TWO!    Where NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED.
BECAUSE GOD INTRODUCED SPACES INTO THE “WATERS” GRAVITY FORMED STARS AND GALAXIES.

WHAT DID HE SAY WAS THE PRODUCT OF DAY TWO!

SKY!

  Within these clumps [stars] gravity caused intense pressure which caused protons to stick together to make the heavier elements.

  So… on Day Two GOD GAVE US CHEMISTRY.

BUT WITHOUT THE “EXPANSE”,...... IT WOULD HAVE ALL PULLED BACK TOGETHER INTO A SINGLE BLACK HOLE.

The uneven distribution of mass occurred during Guth’s period of rapid inflation.
  This pattern of irregularity was enlarged but persisted unchanged and gave the pattern of today’s universe.

George Smoot has a computer simulation posted on Ted.com.
You might want to watch that.

[ON DAY ONE HE GAVE PHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS.]


conrad - #23427

July 26th 2010

BTW the Bible is NOT the product of a bronze age mind.
IT REALLY IS GOD’S WORD.
ISN’T IT WONDERFUL!


conrad - #23430

July 26th 2010

HEY IF YOU THINK THAT THIS INFORMATION BLOWS YOUR MIND….... WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR ABOUT PARALLEL UNIVERSES.

I personally believe that one of then is called ‘Heaven”
 
[that is an inherent feature of string theory. and string theory is coming on like gangbusters.]

I hate to say this,..... but you good old preacher boys,,,  ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STUDY, TO PREACH GOD’S WORD.


JKnott - #23448

July 26th 2010

I keep hearing on BioLogos, and have heard from other Christians who want to spread the word about science to the evangelical community, that we can know God through the created world and therefore should be open to learning about the deliverances of modern biology (e.g., evolution) b/c it will teach us about God.  I agree that we should be open to hearing about these things, but I’m skeptical about this approach.  Romans 1, is of course, a classic text used to support this way of thinking. But Paul there does not say we CAN know God through creation if we make the effort, but that we already Do know, such that our lack of faith is always without excuse. Nor does it seem possible to assume he is teaching us that there are certain things we need to know about God that await further scientific or other investigations.  The standard view seems to imply, however, that Paul is advocating a method of knowing God.  But given the sad state of science in Paul’s time, we have to assume (in this standard view) that either God can reveal himself through bad science, or that only in modern times can we understand God correctly.  Only the former makes some sense of Paul’s words, but it undermines the intentions of those making this argument.


JKnott - #23449

July 26th 2010

(continued).  That is because, if even ancient “science” could reveal God, we don’t need modern science to do that.  On the other hand, if only in modern times do we understand God correctly, Paul and Jesus and everyone before modern times is at a disadvantage.  But even if you can accept that, it clearly is not what Paul is saying, for if it’s true, in reality earlier people DID have an excuse.  Moreover, I’d like to hear some specifics: what precise finding or findings of science tells us what, exactly, about God? Does evolution tell us God likes to fiddle around and experiment? Or that God changes? Maybe the age of the earth tells us God is patient, but didn’t we know that already?  And is a God who can wait 4,000 years of history (according to the YEC viewpoint, for instance) for the incarnation not patience enough? Maybe the study of genetic diseases tells us God is cruel?  Why not?  And finally, is it not the case that in fact, putting the onus of revealing God on scientific discoveries actually tends to impede or skew them, because we’re afraid some finding might tell us something we don’t want to know, or because current knowledge tells us what we do want to know.


beaglelady - #23458

July 26th 2010

conrad,

You’re no longer funny. Give it a rest, okay?


merv - #23459

July 26th 2010

My browser shows this video as being “locked down” this morning.  It says it is a private video and that we need permission and a password to watch it. 

—Merv


beaglelady - #23466

July 26th 2010

merv,


what browser are you using?  It doesn’t work for me in FireFox. Try the Internet Explorer browser.  (Every time I point this out my comments get deleted.  Go figure.)


conrad - #23467

July 26th 2010

Well J Knott.

The Bible taught that there was a beginning to time.
Almost the entire world including Newton and Einstein thought otherwise.
We now know there is relative time and before there was a universe there was NO time.

The Bible says the early universe was “void and without form”
We now know it didn’t even have atomic structure.

The Bible says God said “let there be light”.
We now know that original light was present fro the first second until 377,000 years later.[and is now the CMB]

The Bible says God SEPARATED light from dark.
We now know there is baryonic matter [light] and “dark matter” which is much more prevalent.

These are just common facts from any Gideon Bible and any TV program on science.

The Bible says God “hovered over the surface of the [dark] waters;...
  and we now know that there are many physical constants which have a precise value and if they had ANY other value, would make the world as we know it impossible.

These are just “off-the-shelf”, everyday science facts. WHICH THE BIBLE PUBLISHED FIRST!

THESE ARE NOT MYTHS FROM THE BRONZE AGE.

These statements came from outside our space-time continuum.
ISN’T THAT GREAT NEWS!
PRAISE GOD FOR IT!


JKnott - #23468

July 26th 2010

Conrad—

I’ll take your seriously this once.  Even if what you say is true (assuming for the sake of argument), it still makes no difference.  We “knew” these things before the modern scientific investigations told them to us, according to your view.  So what do they tell us?  And do you think there was an excuse not to know them before?  If so, was Paul wrong to say there was no excuse?


merv - #23470

July 26th 2010

Thanks, beaglelady, I use Firefox; IE shows the same —It shows a ‘Vimeo’ logo and labels it a ‘private video’.  If any moderator is reading maybe they could investigate?

—Merv


conrad - #23471

July 26th 2010

Yes JKnott BUT THE SCIENTISTS ARE NOW CONFIRMING THE BIBLE.

THE OLD “SCIENCE AGAINST THE BIBLE PARADIGM”  from the Scopes trial [and endless versions of a fictional trial ostensibly dramatizing the differences.. called “Inherit the Wind”]   

THAT PARADIGM HAS ENDED WITH A VICTORY FOR THE BIBLE.

All we have to do now is praise God for it.


conrad - #23474

July 26th 2010

JKnott,.... science and the Bible are now saying the same things.

BUT THE BIBLE PUBLISHED THEM ...... FIRST,...... AND NOTHING THE BIBLE SAID HAD EVER REQUIRED CORRECTION AFTER SCIENCE INVESTIGATED IT.

To me that is the glorious part.

[And that includes the Adam and Eve story.]


Webmaster - #23475

July 26th 2010

Merv,
Somehow the video got set back to password protection. I went a head and changed it so it should be working again. If you have issues, please shoot me an email so I can help troubleshoot it.


HornSpiel - #23476

July 26th 2010

Conrad,

It appears to ,me that you are very passionate and excited by what you see as God’s revelation to you of the truth of the Bible. However, for most of the people posting here, not only do your claims seem far-fetched, the way you deliver them make us all extremely suspicious of your motives.

Your posts border on being considered inappropriate for the is blog. ALL CAPS is interpreted by most people as shouting. Your posts give the impression of a wild-eyed preacher on a street corner yelling at the passers by. Most of us want to ignore you, yet there seems to be a spark of something good that some of us would like to engage.

Please consider toning down and shortening your posts. Remover the capitalization. (>i<You can us html italic markup fro emphasis if you like>/i<).  Frame your theories about scripture and science tentatively ( I believe, I feel IMO ,etc). and only when appropriate Most importantly do not use this blog as a place for advertising your pet theory, but to thoughtfully engage with other posters.

Yours in Christ
K. Spielmann


Headless Unicorn Guy - #23478

July 26th 2010

Conrad’s posts are showing all the symptoms of a kook rant.

The MULTIPLE ALL-CAPS PASSAGES are the most obvious giveaway.


conrad - #23480

July 26th 2010

K Spielmann these are not tentative truths.

I AM SHOUTING!

I am pointing out the perfect correlation between science and Bible,.... comparing one with the other.

Please point to which facts,..... or scriptures,...... you regard as “tentative”.
None of them are.
So I am curious about which part you consider unproven.

And I never learned to use italics. Sorry, I use caps.
You can get used to it.

And thank you for responding. Perhaps we can help each other.


Page 1 of 3   1 2 3 »