Re: Two kinds of theistic science?

Bill Hamilton (
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:11:44 -0500

Howard Van Till wrote:

>At the present time, the scoring system for the (tragic) creation/evolution
>debate is inverted. Every time the natural sciences find a new "crane" it is
>credited to the worldview of Naturalism. Meanwhile, the viabiblity of the
>Christian concept of creation is made to appear as if it were dependent on
>demonstrating the need for skyhooks. I can see why the preachers of
>Naturalism like this scoring system. What really surprises me is that so many
>Christians have accepted it as well.

I am similarly surprised. It seems to me that as Christians the two most
important truths we believe in are 1) God's sovereignty and 2) Jesus' death
and resurrection as the means whereby our sins are atoned for and the claim
of Christ that He has conquered death is validated. When new claims appear
to contradict our understanding of Scripture, we ought to be 1) Reminding
ourselves that God is sovereign and 2) Investigating the new claims to see
how they might be congruent with God's sovereignty. Instead, some of us
seem to see threats to God's sovereignty in new knowledge. Or we think we
understand Scripture so well that new claims that conflict with our
understanding automatically have to be incorrect. The first reaction seems
to trust in God too little, while the second seems to trust in man too

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | (home email)