Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family

Moorad Alexanian (
Thu, 29 Apr 1999 10:41:11 -0400

Dear David,

The difficulty I see with your argument is the following. At this embryonic
stage of evolutionary theory, the theory resembles most forensic science.
That is to say, it is not a science in the same sense that physics is a
science. However, with the outcome of microbiology, evolutionary theory will
have to be invariably connected with the microscopic description of matter.
A truly fundamental theory of evolution will then be predictive as it is in
physics and so life will be predicted to occur from nonliving matter and
nonliving matter can be predicted to evolve into the complexity that we
observe at the micro level and its manifestation at the macro level.
Certainly such an ambition theory does not include God. Of course, I do not
believe that such a theory exists. But those who advocate theistic evolution
are headed in that path together with the atheists. What then is the
difference between them?? I fail to see it! Of course, I have always said
that the question of origins is not a scientific question and so that whole
program is doomed to fail. There will always be a beginning that will escape
the scrutiny and musings of man.

Take care,


-----Original Message-----
From: David Campbell <>
To: <>
Date: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family

>Art wrote:
>>We may still differ as to the (still important) details, but who in the
>>Christian community would argue that there was no Creator needed?
>That is the problem with Johnson's claims. He is conceding to the the
>claims of non-theists and saying that, if things evolved, then there was no
>creator needed. This limits God's choice of how to create and neglects His
>role in non-miraculous events.
>Johnson is correct in noting widespread unbiblical bias in accounts of
>evolution, especially in popular-level ones, but he misidentifies the point
>of error. "Evolution is true, therefore I can disregard the Bible" is
>wrong in the therefore. To the extent that "evolution" means the physical
>process of descent from a common ancestor with modification, influenced by
>natural selection, evolution is true as far as I can tell.
>David C.