Yes, I know, this is a very late review, but I only just watched it recently on a DVD... and after watching it some interesting thoughts came to my mind. I'll jot some of them down here.

I've never read the book of the same name by Douglas Adams, but, after having watched the movie- which was over all rather unserious, but with an odd tinge of philosophical opinions- I come away with an interesting observation (at least to me).

The movie's premise is about the Answer to everything. When it ends, it does not answer it at all (I don't know whether if it is "answered" in Adams' subsequent books though). And I now come to the conclusion that man will never find the ultimate, satisfactory, answer to everything.

Through out Hitchiker, we see some subtle potshots at religion ("Who is this God thing anyway?" and the Church scene). Yet the movie- and other attempts to touch on the "ultimate answer" reeks of irony. Usually the deny God as the answer- and end up getting nothing.

Does Christianity offer the ultimate answer? Yes, for me it does. We were made for God. And our purpose is to worship him. It's that simple. I say it's much simpler than "42".

...I'll be taking a break from blogging. This whole month has been exceptionally busy for me, and with loads of events coming up ahead I can't really spare much time to blog. I might still pop up now and then with a few short posts, but don't expect anything fancy.

Ah...I must have got the "breaking from bloggin" bug just like Phil Johnson and Adam Cummings.

Nothing else to say, except to comment a little on Steve Hays interesting post on the subject of infant salvation. He raises some oft neglected issues, one that would greatly help those struggling with this issue. (For the record, I hold to an agnostic position on the fate of infants. I have read John Piper's take on this issue, as well as those who say that all infants go to hell...and I end up thinking that they both cancel out each other. Hence, my position.)

Take care and God bless!

It has always been interesting to me that, when God answered Job's questions about his sufferings, He did not answer him with some fanciful theodicy. Rather, our Lord asserted his sovereignity. His ownership over everything. Indeed, it was Paul who expressed it perfectly, that "who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? "

Ah yes. Who are you O mere creature, to question the creator?. Who are you, the pot, to question the potter?

Evil is, without a doubt, the number one reason why people disbelieve in God. Yet, would not one agree that the omnipotence of God itself necessitates something called, "I will do what I will."?

A world without evil is possible. Heaven, for one. Thus one is forced to the question, "Why does God allow evil?" Many at this point would jump to a theodicy. Others would perhaps claim agnosticism and say "there's evil, but I don't see anything wrong with God allowing it". I side with the latter.

Of course, the reason of why God allows evil is perhaps something of a controversy. Does he allow evil because it brings about a greater good? Does he allow it to glorify himself more? Or perhaps he cannot stop evil?

I think one of the main reasons why the problem of evil has gained such momentum is because of the typical evangelical claim that "God is love"- they have painted a false picture of a smiley face in the sky. As I have repeatedly said, that is a truth, but not the whole truth. God is also jealous and holy. God is God. He does whatever he wants, and he has done rather nasty things to poor, helpless (and sometimes, honest and sincere) people in the Bible. Unloving? Definitely. But who are we to question the Lord God Almighty?

This line of thinking has always dominated me. God's sovereignity, instead of being cancelled out by evil, cancels evil out instead. He, after all, does whatever he wants. Is there anything wrong with him allowing evil? God after all, is God.

Let it be said that God does not contradict his inherently moral and good nature. He is loving, He is good. The cross has been a symbol of His love. Yet, it is also a symbol of his wrath. He is a God who sends people to heaven, and damns people to hell.

And, as it has been constantly asserted, there is nothing wrong with God allowing evil. For "I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,' calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it. "- Isaiah 46: 9-11

Well, hopefully.

I expected this week to be less busy than the one before. Unfortunately, I was not very correct. For one, I had to prepare for a sermon on "Repentance". I humbly admit that although this was the first time preaching before my CM (Children's Ministry, so named by a friend of mine even though we're all college folks. Ah well, it's good to be different!), I was more than satisfied (Or were my friends clapping because my sermon was finally over rather than because I did a good job??? Hmm... I don't know). Anyway, I'm glad I've been given the chance to expound God's Word, and to gleefully discard the materials I was given to preach from in favor of Carson's commentary (I was preaching from Matthew) and word studies (Kittel) and Bible Encyclopedias. Thankfully, they didn't find out :-)

I had tried at first to get back to a regular blogging schedule by today, but now I'm not so sure...perhaps by next week but, nevertheless, I'll do my best to not let this blog drift to the oblivion of ignorance (hehe).

And whad'ya know? John Hendryx, the guy at Monergism.com, has now set up a sub-section on the "Emerging Church". I'm just waiting for him to throw neutrality into the wind at add it to his "Bad Theology" section. Hmm...I guess I better stop commenting any further from topics I'm not yet decided on.

Wow...its been a very, very long week for me, and I'm just glad that it's Saturday. I'll try to return to a regular blogging schedule by Wednesday, if possible. Until then, here are some of my thoughts on the controversy between the Young-Earth Creationists and the Intelligent Design Movement (a.k.a. "The Wedge Of Truth"). From now on BTW, I'll try to add a bit of a scholarly touch (hehe) whenever possible to my posts.
_______________________________________________________

It wasn't too long before the first shots were underway between the YEC and the ID movements. I quote from Wieland's assessment of the Intelligent Design movement, from a creationist perspective:

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time. Were the IDM to partially succeed in its initial aims, some of the strongest opponents of literal Genesis may well arise from its recently-victorious ranks. For instance, Dr Michael Denton, though an amiable fellow, was nevertheless part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific." [1]

Wieland also points out, rightly, that

"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions. In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse." [2]

This also reminds me of Butler's critique of the teleological argument: "Why are we to conclude that there is only one designer? Why not many designers? After all, the clothes you have were not all designed by one person, right?" [3]

Thus, I agree that "Intelligent Design" in and itself provides us no impetus to head to the Creator God. That said, I think it would be a "baby with the bathwater" approach if we are to discredit the ID argument entirely based this criticism. It must be said, beforehand, that many have already considered young-earth creationism to be dead and buried (and I also agree that this particular aspect of their movement would pretty much hang on a certain interpretation of Genesis 1). Consequently, many people (Christians included) turn a deaf ear to young-earthers.

However, before I continue, I would like to say that I hold to a great deal of respect to the many credible young-earth creationists scientists out there (excluding fundamentalists like Ken Hovind, who is horrible in some aspects of his argumentation), and believe that too many Christians wrongly reject such people as "literalistic fundamentalists".

But then, that is where my appreciation for YEC ends. I, of course, completely agree with and recommend critiques of evolution from a young-earth perspective, but I think that when it comes to defending the age of the earth, their argumentation gets rather tedious. [4]

And that is where the "Wedge Of Truth" comes in. They are perhaps a more credible and stronger force than the creationists, as Dembski notes:

"Entire books in mainstream academic presses have now been written to debunk intelligent design (Forrest and Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, published by Oxford University Press, is just one example). The same cannot be said for creationism."[5]

So then, it is clear that the evolutionists consider ID a greater force to reckon with than creationism. How does this affect apologetic argumentation? For one, it would first be important to establish that we were created, before bringing the argument down to the authority and truthfulness of the Bible. And I do think that "design" is indeed a great force to be reckoned with when dealing with an atheist or agnostic. [6]
_______________________

[1] AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement, Carl Wieland

[2] Ibid.

[3] I have paraphrased Butler's criticism.

[4] One thing I have always noticed about young-earth defenses is that most of it centers on critiquing old-earth models (rather than creating their own). This is not to say that young-earthers have not come out with their own geological time scale models. They have. But I still feel uneasy and uncertain when it comes down to this, as such models would not have been developed if it wasn't for a particular interpretation of the Creation and the Flood narratives. I, for now, remain undecided on the age of the earth.

[5] Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, William Dembski. For the sake of fairness, I point to you Sarfati's response to Dembski.

[6] The issue of deism is another matter entirely. I focus now on whether God exists.