The finite human mind must analyze, take things apart, before it can study
it. Afterwards there must be an integration of the knowledge acquired by the
different fields of study. That is to say, a synthesis of the various
disciplines used to study the parts. For instance, different disciples can
study the same thing but with different objectives. For example, man can be
studied by physicists, chemists, biologists, theologians, psychiatrists,
etc. The thing is not what one of the disciplines say it is but what all
the disciplines say that it is. It is this integration of knowledge that I
keep referring to. Theology forms an integral part of knowledge and ought to
be part of the integrated wealth of knowledge. The unification that
physicists talk about is within the field of physics and not with other
forms of knowledge. Of course, there must be unification within a given
field before that field can be unified with other fields.
From: William A. Wetzel <email@example.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Brian D Harper <email@example.com>;
Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>Unity of Knowledge and Unified Theory are different subjects. Unification
>of Forces was Werner Heisneberg's and Albert Einstein's dream. I'm sure a
>unification there will eventually happen.
>As for Unified Knowledge? Not in this life or the next. Monotheism cannot
>have Unity of Knowledge except for God Himself. Even Christ in scripture:
>"Does not know the day nor the hour of the end".
>Many theologians claim that Man can achieve this unity or consilience. It
>cannot be as long as we are confined in both finiteness and in time. That
>is a sad but realistic picture of Man's reason.
>Now as for your problem with macro-evolution? It does not invalidate what
>scripture has to say any more than taking Revelation symbolically. That's
>a bunch of HOG WASH propaganda from the Fundamentalist/Creationist camp.
>Now... I've seen another post in reply to your problem with evolution. It
>may serve you well to study the issue well. I will take a moment to help,
>if you wish to carry this on with me.
>William - N6RKY
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> Dear William,
>> We all advocate unity of knowledge. The question is that we must unify
>> 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
>> can pick and choose--the Bible becomes a smorgasbord. What is changing
>> 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
>> 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
>> Heisenberg who said that the unification of all forces in nature had to
>> with monotheism. Both are appealing to the mind of man---a manifestation
>> the image of God in man.
>> I do not believe that man can prove the existence of God. Man is
>> 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
>> or even?
>> Take care,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William A. Wetzel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: Moorad Alexanian <email@example.com>
>> Cc: Brian D Harper <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
>> email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 5:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>> >Dear Moorad:
>> >Theistic Evolutionists do not necessarily advocate Unity of Knowledge.
>> >is held more frequently among theorists than practical science. Yes, I
>> >a theoritician. At least you have me pegged -- but not Theistic
>> >itself. Most people in this camp agree that Man's Reason is
>> >But... We do have enough knowledge to realize that evolution is a part
>> >the creative process. And if one also believes in theism; then
>> >Theistic Evolution is unavoidable. Any other conclusion would deny
>> >known to science today. I pingeoned holed your comments because it
>> >typical of a fundamentalist/creationist point of view.
>> >Now let's get into a little philosophy here: How can a monotheist deny
>> >to be true that there is no unity of knowledge (in this life or the
>> >is beyond me! All knowledge is of God -- period.
>> >Now let's do a little theology here: St. Thomas Aguinas's proofs for
>> >he employs Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological proofs. Because
>> >employed these methods (and more) it is certain that theologians have
>> >do subscribe to "some form of" Unity of Knowledge.
>> >Is there enough to prove the case?? The answer is no. Theology like
>> >of Knowledge and Unified Theory still needs research and discovery. But
>> >case does exist and most theorists are heading in this direction as
>> >in your original post. Even Stephen Hawking is relenting on his
>> >against God and Unified Theory.
>> >Best Wishes,
>> >William - N6RKY
>William A. Wetzel