Showing posts with label daniel chew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label daniel chew. Show all posts
Monday, September 04, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Friday, August 12, 2016
Dreams and visions on the mission field
Daniel Chew is a Reformed cessationist. However, he's enough of an independent thinker that he grounds his position differently than the average cessationist, as a result of which he draws the lines differently:
Labels:
cessationism,
daniel chew,
Hays,
Missions
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Singapore church history
Labels:
China,
daniel chew,
Hays,
Missions
Saturday, April 09, 2016
A third-party perspective on black/white relations in America
Dr. White has recently responded in his Dividing Line podcast to the false accusations of racism that were charged at him. As a non-white and an outsider to the American situation, I would think I have a third party perspective to this whole controversy over race, which I find ridiculous. In Singapore where I grew up, we have 4 main "races": Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian, and we get along rather fine. What I find ludicrous about the whole "conversation" about race in the US is the binary it produces: that there are only "Whites" and "Blacks." "Whites" have the white man burden of proving they are not racist (which is again, why?), while "blacks" seem to get a free pass as being the default victim class. Just by stating this, we can see a whole host of problems. First, why the racial binary? How about other races like Korean-American, Chinese-American, and so on? And just in case one is tempted to lump them into one "colored" category, well, that is just plain ridiculous! The different "colored" people do not necessarily get along, and they do not necessarily see themselves as one monolithic bloc called "colored." I'm sorry if I actually believed in racial diversity! Chinese-Americans and Korean-Americans are not the same, and I refuse to treat them as one and the same thing!
Monday, May 18, 2015
Was there an Ur-cat?
For example, I absolutely agree with Osborn that lions tearing off bark for food is silly. But which scientifically informed creationist actually holds to such a ludicrous position?
The firs thing that must be said is there were no "lions" in Eden. There was only the first animal type of the various created kinds, or barmaids. Since lions belong to the cat kind, there was probably some primordial cat that is the ancestor of all the cats we have today…In fact, I would venture to say that many of the animals we see today probably did not exist in the primordial world.
http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/ddd_chc82/articles/DeathBeforeFall_review.pdf
I agree with much of what Daniel says here. However, I don't see that creationism is logically, exegetically, or scientifically committed to the proposition that all modern cats descend from a single exemplar.
Must we say that Siberian Tigers and caracals all descend from one exemplar? Why could there not be a primordial kind for the big cats and another primordial kind for small cats?
Must weasels and sea otters all derive from a single mustela? What about God making an aquatic mustela kind from which modern river otters and sea otters derive?
Likewise, must turtles and tortoises all derive from a single Chelonian exemplar? Why not a primordial kind for turtles and another primordial kind for tortoises–given that one is terrestrial and the other aquatic?
Currently, some bats are insectivorous, some bats are frugivorous, and some bats are hematophagous. According to creationism, these might represent adaptations. They all descend from a single exemplar.
But I don't see that creationism precludes an insectivorous Ur-bat in distinction to a frugivorous Ur-bat. I don't see that creationism demands an Ur-cat, Ur-bat, &c. The main thing is fiat creation or special creation of natural kinds, and not creation of singular kinds–where everything of a kind must branch out from one trunk. Why not an Ur-turtle and an Ur-tortoise?
Similar terrestrial and aquatic or marine species needn't derive from one exemplar. Rather, you can have original diversity along with subsequent diversification within terrestrial types and aquatic (or marine) types.
I see no reason why, even on creationist grounds, oviparous snakes, viviparous, land snakes, sea snakes, venomous snakes, and constrictors must all be derived from a single generic exemplar.
Oviparous snakes can be one kind of snake, which descend from an oviparous exemplar. Sea snakes can be another kind of snake, which descend from a marine exemplar. And so on and so forth.
Oviparous snakes can be one kind of snake, which descend from an oviparous exemplar. Sea snakes can be another kind of snake, which descend from a marine exemplar. And so on and so forth.
Seems to me that Daniel is mixing creationism with a conventional taxonomy, where you classify organisms from general to specific. But the notion of fiat natural kinds is compatible with some basic varieties from the get-go.
Labels:
Creationism,
daniel chew,
Hays
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)