Back to Genesis

Now that I'm tuition-free from centers, I have more time to read.

The center's boss met me while I was cycling home the other day. She and asked me how I was doing. My students have been asking about me. Well, I guess it's the center's loss. And also the students' loss. The boss knows she can't easily replace someone who works more for less, and works to bless. The students know that they can't easily find someone who treats them more than just a money object. My student in 4 Earth knows that it's not usual for him to find a teacher who would go great lengths to get him a decent education outside the school.

But nevertheless, I think it's a good move to quit.

So, besides being Math geek by day and bike racer by night, I have more time to read. My daily reading diet is like this:

1. Complete Triathlon Book in the morning, while sitting on the throne.

2. A portion from Genesis, NKJV version, at night.

3. The same portion again, Malay version (To make up for the lost opportunity. Will be ready the next time opportunity presents itself).

4. A portion from Systematic Theology.

Found these verses interesting:

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. (Genesis 2:4-6)

At the same night, I read this portion from Systematic Theology. The chapter on The Necessity of Scripture. About the certainty of Scripture:

Thus, it is appropriate for us to be more certain about the truths we read in Scripture than about any other knowledge we have... This concept of the certainty of knowledge that we attain from Scripture then gives us a reasonable basis for affirming the correctness of much of the other knowledge that we have. We read Scripture and find that its view of the world around us, of human nature, and of ourselves corresponds closely to the information we have gained from our own sense-experiences of the world around us. Thus we are encouraged to trust our sense-experiences of the world around us: our observations correspond with the absolute truth of Scripture; therefore, our observations are also true and, by and large, reliable.

It sounds like a slap in the face for empiricists, or for any decent scientist who dare calls himself a scientist. The purpose of science is to investigate the truth about the world around us with our senses. Not let some other source dictate it for us.

But the Christian worldview defines the purpose of science as an attempt to investigate the truth about the world around us, period. Not just by our senses. By any means possible. Which means, without ruling out the possibility of the God factor.

To take it one step further, here is where the attitude of a Christian scientist differs from that of an unbelieving scientist. The Christian scientist sees science as an affirmation of the absolute truth about the history of creation, as already stated in the Scriptures.

On the other hand, the unbelieving scientist calls this approach a "scientific captivity". The assumption that the Bible is absolutely correct in everything about the world, and drawing on that assumption to investigate the world, holds scientific truth captive from what it really could be.

Well, the bible says in the history of the heavens and the earth, there was no rain. A mist merely went up and watered the ground. The water cycle was not like what we see today - Evaporation, condensation, rain fall, evaporation, etc. The Bible says when our planet was in its infancy, water existed at equilibrium with gas (That is, if I'm interpreting it correctly). The air was "wet" all the time. So, no need rain.

So, how Christian are we?