George Murphy (email@example.com)
Sun, 21 Dec 1997 12:39:23 -0500
Glenn Morton wrote:
> At 12:19 AM 12/20/97 -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >I hate to say it, but Barry Lynn & Co. stomped Wm. Buckley & Co.
> >tonight. It was basically hard-core science (in spite of Michael Ruse)
> >against philosophical mush. The final image of the debate was classic
> >though. Barry Lynn, who had requested the debate, made reference to
> >John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word..." Then he said, "Maybe the
> >Word was 'evolve'." To substitute Jesus with evolution is blasphemous,
> >and with his last words, Lynn perfectly characterized his position in
> >exactly the way Phil Johnson had been trying to do but with much less
> >success. As an added bonus, Lynn undoubtedly nauseated or infuriated
> >the conservative Christians across America. Talk about pulling defeat
> >out of the jaws of victory!
> I would agree with much of your assessment. Kenneth Miller's charge that
> Johnson and co had not tried to explain things rather than explain them away
> or simply repeat the mantra that evolution won't work, struck home.
> I agree that Barry Lynn's statment was stupid tactically and poor theology.
> But I would suggest that Philip Johnson is going to get unloaded on by the
> young-earth creationists. He said "I have said on many occasions and have
> urged persons in the conservative Christian community to put aside the Bible
> issues and let us ask the question what is actually known from scientific
> evidence as opposed to materialistic philosophy." and of a young-earth
> creationist book said "The kind of thing you are scouraging certainly is
> silly, just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins. And its
> damaging. And I mean that."
> I would expect that the conservative wrath may be unleashed on Johnson worse
> than on Barry Lynn.
1) The people Lynn offended were people who already disagreed
with him so he lost nothing.
2) The equation of the logos with "evolve" is simplistic &, if
stated without qualification by a Christian, heretical. But it
highlights the fact that the Christians made no attempt to connect
th Incarnation. & if Christ genuinely assumed human nature, & if
humanity in any way has evolved, that connection has to be made.
3) It sounds to me as if the primary lack in the debate - as in
most such debates - is theological competence on either side.
George L. Murphy