According to Dr. Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, his intentions
(assuming that we can label him with the ID stamp) are to show that at the
Biochemistry level, the level where life starts (the nuts and bolts level),
Darwin theory of evolution is not adequate. Others may take his findings and
develop various theological views. ID is attractive because if Dr. Behe is
right, the theory evolution is challenged at the most fundamental level of
biology. Never mind the physical similarities among the species, he says (I'm
paraphrasing), if a biomolecular explanation to evolution is not possible then
Darwin was wrong and another theory must be found. (I may have adulterated
Dr. Behe original views, this is how I take them today! :-}).
Now, for the theistic evolutionist I say, Ro 1:20 talks about the things made,
does not go into how they were made, so he/she is ok with regard to this verse.
Finally, a person is not condemn by rejecting Jesus Christ. A person, any
person, is already condemned. When a person rejects Christ we can only say
that we now know that that person is condemned unless he/she repents. All
have sinned, all have been condemned. Christ died to "justify" those already
condemned. I know it is still hard to accept that all people, whether they
have heard the gospel or not, stand condemned; but that's what Romans teaches.
> natural theology/theistic naturalism and Romans 1:20
> Gladwin Joseph (email@example.com)
> Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:51:44 -0700
> Rom 1:20 (NKJV) says
> "For since the creation of the world HIs invisible
> attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things
> that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that
> they are without excuse"
> From the perspective of Paleyian natural theology it would
> seem easy to reconcile the apparent meaning of this verse,
> but from the perspective of "theistic naturalism" it would
> apear to be more difficult. Unless of course i am missing
> something entirely in the current discussion on the theology
> behind Intelligent design and Theistic evolutionary
> Rom 1:20 also cause me to intellectually struggle over the
> issue of what happens to those who haven't heard the Gospel?
> I am particularly interested in how one reconciles this
> verse epistemologically if one holds to a Theistic
> evolutionary view and also missiologically as mentioned.