>I accept that admonition (below) in the friendly spirit in which it is
>offered. I do need to tell you, however, that my audiences would
>hilarious that theistic evolutionists are offering me advice on
>strategy, on the apparent premise that their own approach is successful
>converting unbelievers and in keeping Christian college students from
>sliding into naturalistic thinking.
>Indeed, one of the things those
>audiences have learned is that the thinking behind that phrase "God of
>gaps" comes straight out of naturalistic metaphysics. See the writings
>have previously cited for further explanation, and especially Chapter 5
>Reason in the Balance.
>This leads me to offer a counter-admonition, in the form of a question.
>Are you sure that thestic evolutionists have been careful not to give
>impression that God is *forbidden* to "intervene" (i.e., do anything
>than watch from a distance) in the course of evolutionary history?
I don't know if you remember me. We spoke at the "Naturalism, Theism,
and the Scientific Enterprise" conference in February of this year.
I've read your earlier two books (I haven't gotten a copy of your most
recent yet), written a lengthy response to _Darwin on Trail_ for a
Christian Thought Class here at Biola, heard two of your seminars (NTSE
and Mere Creation), and have listened to radio programs featuring you
several times. I know your arguments very well, and appreciate many of
them. There is one thing that you keep reiterating (i.e. your comments
above) that confuses me.
I come from a concordinistic school of thought. I believe (and find it
quite obvious) that "truth is truth," and that whatever method one
discovers truth by (solong as it is legitamate truth), the end product
is the same. Scriptures are true, by deffinition, they are the
inspired word of the One who defines what is true. Science is true, as
it is the general revelation of this same defining entity. So then,
why is there a conflict? I believe that if the truth is percieved
correctly. that there will not be a conflict. The most "accurate"
school of thought, then, in viewing the question of origins, is the
Theistic Evolutionary point of view.
Yet you bash this group time and time again, throwing back-handed
remarks that, at least for myself, border on insult. Please explain
why the understanding of origins as the Creator God using the tool of
evolution is heretical, or at least impossible to arrive at in a proper
As for your claim about T.E. being an insufficent philosophy by which
to lead people to Christ, I contest that strongly. I have met more
people who are fenced out of the Kingdom because they are unwilling to
abandon what they know and swallow a YEC point of view than those who
have been converted to Christianity from the secular evolutionary point
of view by means of the forceful abandonment of their paradigm. This
issue is not one of salvation (or else the great majority of those on
this list are pagan), and should not be treated this way. If someone
is willing to hear the Gospel if they're allowed to hold on to
evolution driven by God, then let them hold on to that. The central
issue is the diety, death, and ressurection of Christ. Lead people to
Christ based on this, not on how the think we got here. I would
suggest that a greater number of scientists would be won for Christ if
they were one on this ground.