Re: Apologetics, Genesis, and C S Lewis

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Thu, 03 Dec 1998 13:55:01 -0500 (EST)

At 02:33 PM 12/3/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
>Moorad replied to my message,
>>When I use the term "evolutionary theory" to mean a truly scientific
>>theory--like theories in physics, where God plays no role. As such all sorts
>>of moral questions, e.g. the Fall of Man, do not make any sense. Of course,
>>if you want to make-up a hybrid "theory" by mixing science and religion, so
>>be it. Evolutionary process means increase in complexity. Surely the
>>reasoning ability of man is the most complex process known. Did early
>>ancestors of man reason like we did? The problem with your post is that you
>>mix science and religion whereas I think of them separately. God does not
>>explicitly appear in any true, scientific theory. Term like humanity have
>>no place in evolutionary theory. It seems that there had to be a transition
>>from non-human to human. What is the mechanism for it? I tell you
>>evolutionary theory gives rise to more questions than meaningful answers.
>I think we may be in more agreement than I have conveyed. The scientific
>evidence related to evolution tells us nothing about humanity's moral
>situation. As such, it is not in conflict with the doctrine of the fall of
>man. If by meaningful answers you refer to theological issues, I do not
>think evolutionary theory is all that good a source of questions, in
>addition to being useless for answers. It does do a good job of describing
>how organisms have changed through time. I think it is important to
>recognize that God is sovereign over all creation and that scientific
>theories are descriptions of how God runs creation, although this primarily
>affects our attitudes and has very little direct influence on what we
>expect a particular experiment to do.

Dear David,

We agree that scientific theories are mere models of the real thing. These
models, no matter how complex they are made to be, can never include God in
it. In fact, if they could it would not be science or else God is not the
Creator who transcends the creation. By meaningful I actually meant
meaningful to science not theology. We really do not know what the future
behavior of things will be. It could the that no theory will ever predict
what awaits the creation.

Take care,