One of my Facebook friends asked about the author of Darwin's Black Box being Old Earth or Young Earth. I looked up some information and found the author started out strong in the field called Intelligent Design, but crab-walked into evolution later.
I have a number of books that are scientific and in perfect harmony with Creation by the Word. One author spouts "evolution!" in such a way that I think he is feeding the evolution minders. I doubt whether any of these books would stay on the market if they witnessed to Creation. But that is not the point here.
If a book - good or bad - contributes to our understanding, we should read it. The SynCon Pietists - WELS-Otten-LCMS-ELDONA-ELS-LCMS have their extensive NO GO zones. Tis sad how Pharisaical they are, because Otten will gladly sell Church Growth idiot books like Valleskey and anti-Luther liars like Father O'Hare, but Herman will ban anyone who has ruffled his oh-so-delicate feathers.
Sig Becker is dreadful on Holy Communion and Justification, but his book on Luther's use of reason is excellent. I found WELS Church Shrinkers using "ministerial" reason to individually appropriate Zwinglian dogma - pretty funny. They missed the entire meaning of their adored professor's book. But they cannot grasp Luther or Paul, so what else is new?
The worst books should be read so we know their arguments. I scoured the Trinity ELCA Seminary Library for all the Church Shrinkage books. Why read such awful stuff? Answer - To be inoculated against the disease agents therein. What better statements is this in the graphic below?
If we take the time to read truly awful books, like Valleskey and Werning, we find common patterns. Sometimes it is common language. WELS' constant lying about their addiction to Fuller is always on display in the books and articles promoted. They are like the people caught with white powder under those nose, saying, "Officer, I just had a powdered sugar donut. Really. They are messy. Spiders. Spiders. Get them off!"
When science is against Creation, the same patterns in language can be found. I look for facts rather than theory, because the revelation of the Holy Spirit judges their theories. The facts scream creation, engineering, and management - all divine of course - but the words say:
"Desert plants evolved so that they had a thick waxy skin to hold moisture within the plant."
So I ruminate about whether mama, dad, or the children made those drastic changes without a single brain cell to use.
I think it is dangerous to try to use science against evolution, because science is a weak argument for Creation. Those who have faith in the Savior can understand through faith, through the efficacious work of the Spirit, how God does everything through the Word.
I use the data of science to say, "What a fine Creation. Look at the engineering of each component and the management of the entire system."
 |
| Norma A. Boeckler |
Thank you for your remarks in the segment: "Language of Creation and Science". Couldn't agree more that limiting reading about issues from secondary sources cannot be compared to reading original source material by purveyors of false ideas.
Reading about something is always at least one step away from the source...right or wrong.
Having done a lot of research about a lot of issues, original source material is essential to identify what other writers or speakers have said, in order to document sources quoted in my own writing.
Limiting sources to only writers about subjects is like limiting one's self to articles about the Bible instead of reading the Bible itself.
