Evangelicals & Science – part 4 of 12 Bible & science during the time of Wesley

Now after giving some background on what evangelicals are and their understanding of the bible in relation to science, we come now to the history.

File:John Wesley by William Hamilton.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

I start with comments on the Conflict Thesis of science and religion and then to the legacy of James Ussher, that good liberal scholar. he’d turn in his grave!

Science did not figure that largely among 18th century evangelicals. They took Newton and all his works for granted, but geology and evolution were still on the horizon.

The ones considered are Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Prince of the American Colonies (they should have stayed that way). And then John Wesley of England and William Williams (Pantycelyn) of Wales (author of O Guide thou great Redeemer). Many still accepted a young earth , but not out of conviction, except Pantycelyn, who followed 17th Century Theorists of the Earth and allowed more time than Ussher would.

Wesley was fascinated by science and wrote helpful books on it and on natural philosophy. He also had medical interests. He also thought animals would be resurrected with humans.

Nothing is said about the rise of geology as there is nothing to say until Joseph Townsend came along at the turn of the century

So here is the chapter

Eighteenth Century Evangelicals; from Jonathan Edwards to John Welsey

GNWD018C03_p59-82

15 thoughts on “Evangelicals & Science – part 4 of 12 Bible & science during the time of Wesley

  1. rjdownard

    Gee, are you the same Michael Bellamy who’s commented on my own TIP http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com website & occasionally on Twitter as @MikeBravoYanky? That Bellamy was a glib young earth creationist who supposedly penned a work on thermodynamics, but has been avoiding the reptile-mammal transition therapsid evidence since 2017, and was so credulous a creationist they were fielding the silly Cambodian “stegosaur” claim (where a temple illustration has been misinterpreted as signs of a living dinosaur in 12th century Khmer culture).

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. rjdownard

    Gee, are you the same Michael Bellamy who’s commented on my own TIP http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com website & occasionally on Twitter as @MikeBravoYanky? That Bellamy was a glib young earth creationist who supposedly penned a work on thermodynamics, but has been avoiding the reptile-mammal transition therapsid evidence since 2017, and was so credulous a creationist they were fielding the silly Cambodian “stegosaur” claim (where a temple illustration has been misinterpreted as signs of a living dinosaur in 12th century Khmer culture).

    btw I am familiar with Roberts’ many articles for the London Geological Society on this topic of theological views on the early days of geology, such as:

    Roberts, Michael B. 2007. “Genesis Chapter 1 and geological time from Hugo Grotius and Marin Mersenne to William Conybeare and Thomas Chalmers (1620-1825).” Geological Society, London, Special Publications 286: 39-49.
    ________. 2009a. “Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873): geologist and evangelical.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications 310: 155-170.
    ________. 2009b. “An Anglican priest’s perspective on the doctrine of creation in the church today.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications 310: 339-347.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  3. michaelroberts4004 Post author

    a comment from my friend Paul Braterman; If you are attempting to answer this nonsense, then on the specific issue of dinosaur tissues (“actual blood” is gibbering nonsense) I recommend the lengthy analysis by Scott Buchanan in Letters to Creationists: https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/soft-tissue-found-in-dinosaur-bones/ It is well-known that Mary Schweitzer, herself an evangelical Christian, fully accepts the scientific evolutionary narrative and timeline and is very upset about the way that creationists are using her work.
    I suggest you get facts straight in future and show some regard for truthfulness

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Mike Bellamy

      From your source reference.. ” The reality is that we don’t know, with any precision, how fast proteins degrade under the conditions found in dinosaur fossil bones. So it is incorrect to claim that we know that it is impossible for soft tissue to survive in any form for 80 million years. And so the whole young earth case here falls apart.”

      Key words “don’t know” and “80 million years”! The latter being so many orders of magnitude extrapolated beyond the known data is a JOKE!! If you read my post you will see I refer to other other things “WE DO KNOW” (Lunar recession, Salt in the Oceans, Isolation of Proteins and the Butterfly) which belie your entire premise to defend the Godless Atheistic Philosophy of Naturalism and Scientism which are the the children of Satan the “father_of_lies”.. and “deceiver of the whole world”.. Let me point out broadly why I know this to be correct;

      1) The Naturalist assumption that energy came from nowhere to create the universe is a KNOWN violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics so its false!
      2) The Naturalist assumption that massive states of thermodynamic order (stars, quazars) came from the maximal disorder of a ball of gas (H + He) is a KNOWN violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics so it is false!
      3) The Naturalist assumption that information can be originate from mass and energy to make the first life is also a KNOWN violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics so it is false!
      4) The Naturalist assumption that information being communicated to offspring can be creatively added to by random mutation (noise) is a KNOWN violation of Shannon’s Law (upon which the entire communication system works) so it is false!
      5) The Naturalist assumption that Natural Selection has the power to save functional information created by the onslaught of noise is now demonstrably falsifiable which has been suspected ever since the failure of Tiara (and all attempts at computer simulation of evolution) so is also a false!

      What you fail to realise is when you meet God you are going to be called to account for your support of deceit_and_lies to young people with legitimate questions and on the edge of deciding whether or not they can trust the BIBLE.. At that point I can assure you, your amused friends of high intellectual standing in the world will be nowhere in sight!!! Did not Jesus say “I thank you father for you have revealed these things to babes”.. It will be the children you are deceiving whom you will face before the throne of God..

      Like

      Reply
      1. Paul Braterman

        I’m past bothering with most of this kind of stuff, so I will merely point out that the Big Bang theory does not violate the first law of thermodynamics, because the (radiation plus matter) positive energy in the universe so created is exactly cancelled out by the gravitational negative energy. As Stanley Jaki (no unbeliever he) pointed out in a lecture I attended, the Universe is the ultimate free lunch, at least as far as energy is considerned

        “What you fail to realise is when you meet God you are going to be called to account for your support of deceit” It behoves you to exercise due diligence before making such accusations, as you are doing here regarding this detail without having bothered to become familiar with the relevant physics. See Matthew 7: 1 – 5

        Liked by 2 people

      2. rjdownard

        We get it, Mike, you know how to repeat the YEC mantras. To save us all the tedium of hearing the same arguments yet again, let it be stipulated you shall have repeated this a billion times. Meanwhile, you seem not to know that you don’t need to persuade anyone here that your YEC mythologies are right. You need to persuade the regular scientific community (whose work the rest of us will continue to draw on) that you’re right. Now someone as far down the creationist pecking order as you stands less chance of doing that than the heavy guns at ICR or AiG, who have failed to gain any traction outside their narrow confines over the last half century of effort, but if you do manage to do so, Mike, THEN let us know. Until then, you’re merely a grumpy internet troll.

        Like

  4. Paul Braterman

    As to whether you have accurately represented that very interesting article, I leave it for readers to judge. But you are quite right about one thing; I do not claim to know anything about God

    Like

    Reply
  5. rjdownard

    Do tell us how many of the physicists alluded to in the piece embrace your brand of young earth creationism, Michael? You seem to think any old secondary commentary piece on the cutting edges of things somehow validates the lunacy of your obsolete and refuted notions. They don’t. Do let us know though when you’ve persuaded any of them of your views. We’re not holding out breath.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Paul Braterman

      I fear that was obvious. I have a rule, which you may consider adopting, that no creationist is allowed more than two comments on a post, unless I find what they are saying interesting and ask them to tell me more. It’s your platform, and you have the right and the responsibility to decide who can use it

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s