Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family

Moorad Alexanian (
Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:30:47 -0400

In my post I was referring to what goes on in public, nonreligious
universities. I believe, my picture is more accurate than not. One is not
questioning the motives or integrity of other Christians. I have often said
that when one does science, God does not came into the picture. The models
that scientists develop have nothing to do with God directly. Once a
scientist brings God into the picture, then he/she will be discredited by
the scientific establishment. Models in science do not and cannot contain
God. The main issue is if some questions are scientific or not. When a
physicist wants to study why the fundamental constants have the values they
do he/she cannot invoke God. That is the rule of doing science. However,
the answer to why the fundamental constants have the numerical values they
do may not be deducible from a scientific theory. In such a case, the
question is not a scientific question. It is clear to me that invariably one
reaches a regressive point beyond which science is helpless. The creation of
the universe is one such question. The questions of origins is another such
question. Let us face it if there is indeed a Creator, then most certainly
the creature can never know the Creator except at the whim of the Creator.
Thus the need of revealed truths.


-----Original Message-----
From: Loren Haarsma <>
To: American Sci Affil <>
Cc: Moorad Alexanian <>
Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family

>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> I should like to relate my interaction with the biology department in our
>> university. I wrote a letter to the editor disagreeing with an op-ed
>> on evolution. Per chance I spoke to a Christian professor in the biology
>> department and while in the conversation asked him if he had read my
>> He said he had not read the letter in the newspaper but that my letter
>> posted on the bulletin board of the biology department and that they were
>> getting ready to answer my letter. The reply to my letter came in the
>> newspaper and was signed by 13 faculty members of the biology
>> department---it seems that the other half of the department did not wish
>> sign the letter and my Christian friend did not sign the letter either. I
>> suppose numbers count! There seems to be a division in biology
>> on this issue but I do not see any Christian professors writing letters
>> the editor expounding their views. Is this brought about by scientific
>> pressure? I do believe that tenure and promotions in most universities
>> based on certain intangibles as, for instance, your faith and how
>> you show it. I think Johnson is right! Let us face it university
>> are composed mostly of liberals and radicals. Where does a Christian fit
>> such a system?
>It saddens me that you, Johnson, and others have such a low opinion of the
>motives and integrity of your Christian brothers and sisters. Over the
>past years, I have participated in a great many Bible
>study/prayer/discussion groups with Christian graduate students and
>faculty. Issues of tenure and promotions were often discussed. Usually
>those discussions were about how our love for and obedience to God
>conflicts with the workaholism which the scientific meritocracy rewards
>and expects for advancement. Sometimes, we also discussed issues of
>vocally expounding Christian values, opposing philosophical naturalism,
>etc. Based upon all of those discussions with hundred of young and
>old scientist Christians at several different universities and
>conferences -- Christians who freely shared with each other their
>deepest convictions and struggles to live out their faith -- I can say
>with great confidence that Johnson's assessment of their motives,
>integrity, and courage is utterly wrong.
>Loren Haarsma