> >Why is it that a "natural" explanation for stellar evolution is OK for a
> >theist while a "natural" explanation for the evolution of life is (at
> >least this is the impression conveyed by Prof. Johnson) incompatible with
> >meaningful theism?
> In the former one is dealing clearly with a physical system, while in the
> latter one is not really sure. If by evolution of life you mean the
> evolution of man from nonliving matter, then the jump in faith to believe in
> the existence of such a theory is astronomical in magnitude. If by evolution
> of life you mean the evolution of man from living but much less complex
> entities, then the question of how human reasoning ability and consciousness
> evolved becomes an extremely difficult problem. A purely materialistic
> theory of man is hard to fathom. Remember what Descartes said that matter
> cannot reason. How then can human reasoning evolve from matter/energy?
In Genesis 1 it is _living_ things rather than non-living which
are explicitly said to have been created mediately.
George L. Murphy