We all advocate unity of knowledge. The question is that we must unify ALL
knowledge, viz.., the sciences, theology, the social sciences, etc. The
process of integration of knowledge should not lead to nihilism--no
knowledge should be, a priori, eliminated.
That God sustains the creation can be viewed as a continuous creative
process. But the latter does not imply that theistic evolution is the
logical conclusion of God sustaining the creation.
I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. If such is not the case then we
can pick and choose--the Bible becomes a smorgasbord. What is changing with
time is our interpretation of Scripture. Much like in science where the
underlying laws of nature do not change but our interpretations of these
laws does change.
Does theistic evolution involves macroevolution as well as microevolution? I
have often said that the Fall of Man is a problem for theistic evolution.
Wherein comes the will of man to fall in theistic evolution?
I am a firm believer that all true knowledge is One. In fact, it was Werner
Heisenberg who said that the unification of all forces in nature had to do
with monotheism. Both are appealing to the mind of man---a manifestation of
the image of God in man.
I do not believe that man can prove the existence of God. Man is imperfect,
God is perfect. God can only be known as a limiting being from imperfect
being. We know that the integers are either odd or even, but is infinity odd
From: William A. Wetzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Moorad Alexanian <email@example.com>
Cc: Brian D Harper <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>Theistic Evolutionists do not necessarily advocate Unity of Knowledge. It
>is held more frequently among theorists than practical science. Yes, I am
>a theoritician. At least you have me pegged -- but not Theistic Evolution
>itself. Most people in this camp agree that Man's Reason is insufficient.
>But... We do have enough knowledge to realize that evolution is a part of
>the creative process. And if one also believes in theism; then LOGICALLY,
>Theistic Evolution is unavoidable. Any other conclusion would deny what's
>known to science today. I pingeoned holed your comments because it seemed
>typical of a fundamentalist/creationist point of view.
>Now let's get into a little philosophy here: How can a monotheist deny it
>to be true that there is no unity of knowledge (in this life or the next)
>is beyond me! All knowledge is of God -- period.
>Now let's do a little theology here: St. Thomas Aguinas's proofs for God,
>he employs Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological proofs. Because he
>employed these methods (and more) it is certain that theologians have and
>do subscribe to "some form of" Unity of Knowledge.
>Is there enough to prove the case?? The answer is no. Theology like Unity
>of Knowledge and Unified Theory still needs research and discovery. But a
>case does exist and most theorists are heading in this direction as noted
>in your original post. Even Stephen Hawking is relenting on his rhetorics
>against God and Unified Theory.
>William - N6RKY