Re: Answer to Eugenie Scott's views

Keith B Miller (
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 11:46:17 -0600

Phil Johnson wrote:

>"If employing methodological naturalism is the only way to reach true
>conclusions about the history of the universe, and if the attempt to
>provide a naturalistic history of the universe has gone from success to
>success, and if even theists concede that trying to do science on theistic
>premises always leads nowhere or into error (the embarrassing "God of the
>gaps"), then the likely explanation for this state of affairs is that
>naturalism is true and theism is false."
>Note that this statement says "likely explanation." It does not claim the
>status of absolute truth, and does not deny that sufficently motivated
>theists can find a refuge. They can retreat into an unfalsifiable
>position, by (for example) saying that God created the whole system, and
>constantly upholds it with his mighty (but scientifically undetectable) hand.

This is precisely why I so strongly oppose your position Phil. You have
bought into Provine's theology. That theology reduces God to the level of
a cosmic magician, not the providential God of scripture who directs all of
natural and human history to His ends - who is actively, creatively
involved in all of the physical universe. You may be surprised at this,
but my problem with your theology is that your understanding of God is not
nearly big enough.


Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506