Re: Science you'd be proud of; or the results of theistic evolution

William A. Wetzel (
Mon, 31 May 1999 17:41:58 -0700


All theistic evolution is is: "mode of creation". It in no way negates in
anyway the truth of God's word. An unbeleiver is just as likely to shun a
faith in the cross - no matter what.

If you are familiar with a model of Knowledge known as THE PYRAMID, it is
formed by science and experience (at the base), transcended by mathematic
principles, which is transcended by philosophical principles, and finally
by THEOLOGICAL <or> 1st Principles. We as Christians view Christ as that.
See John 1:1 for this :)

Typically: Y.E.C.'s, O.E.C's, & Designer advocates attempt to use a form
of philosophy to defend their positions... But they usually fall apart in
first year science courses. I am not going to get into a discourse in the
intricates of Q.M. and Chaos Theory, because that would involve too much.

I'll leave that task to your local college library.

Best Wishes,
William - N6RKY

John Neal wrote:
> So?...So? What? What do you mean, "So?" You just exemplify my
> point. Christianity has indeed been, and still is used to justify
> slavery, oppression, terrorism, etc. by various groups, and THAT INDEED
> DOES NOT mean that these are the fruits of Christianity.
> The point I'm making is that this genetically modified food, fetal
> tissue research, etc., is INDEED riding on the back of compassion and
> concern for the poor and suffering, which is a fruit of Christianity,
> and INDEED IS being used to deceptively implement various forms of
> evil.
> The whole, pathetic "survival of the fittest" regime has produced
> nothing but justification for almost every kind of predjudice there is.
> This disgusting position, coupled with outright ridiculous and
> non-critical "schmoozing" of the very real and effectual truths of the
> scriptures, the very words of life themselves, which deserve and command
> only the absolute utmost critical analysis and dependence, has left a
> gaping void of irresponsibility into which the essence of modern
> "science" has taken root.
> Theistic evolution allows a Christian the "convenience" of avoiding
> the cross of Christ. It "relieves" him of his fears of what might
> happen to him were he to actually take a righteous and recalcitrant
> stand upon the very Rock of Eternity. Further more, and certainly what
> is intended to be conveyed in my post, theistic evolution allows evil
> itself to prosper and flourish through the unspiritual, uncritical,
> unchallenged, and unable efforts to discern, disapprove, disallow, and
> disintegrate it.
> Brothers and sisters in Christ, there can be no real responsible
> science if the scientists themselves are not responsible to God. We in
> Christ are the light of the world. If we hold positions of worldly
> influence and power, as scientists and professors of knowledge most
> certainly do, do you not think that our Lord will hold us accountable at
> his judgement seat for what our councels have resulted in? Do not
> Christians hold a sizable amount of worldly power and wealth, as well as
> intellectual capital? Must not these tools be used to our Lord's
> pleasure? Are they not his gifts to us? Should we not ever repay him?
> Every generation of the church has had it's own unique type of trials
> and tribulations upon which to exert itself for the glory of God. Can
> you not see what Christ has laid before us in this generation? When He
> says that we have done unto him that which we have done to the least of
> those his bretheren, do we actually think of what exactly we have done
> to these people? Are you sure that you will want to face the Ancient of
> Days having done little to nothing in defense of or aid to the least of
> his bretheren? Especially in the light of your vast worldly expertise
> and provision? Do not forget that once the rich man had entered into
> the tormenting fire of hell, he indeed did see the error of his ways and
> most probably wished he had given to Lazarus food from his table as that
> poor man sat outside his gate starving, dogs licking his sores.
> Again, the rejection of all science because bits of it can be misused
> is hardly what I mean to convey. Rather, I'm saying that the proper use
> of knowledge is dependent upon the user of it. Seeing that all have
> sinned and come short of the glory of God, there must indeed be
> multitudes of checks and balances enforced by the aggregate of mankind
> upon ourselves in order to avoid concentrations of evil. I am not
> suggesting evil be irradicated, because this is impossible. I am saying
> that as keepers of the eternal flame, we must be soberly vigilant so
> that none are burnt by it. Are we to passively sit in denial and
> powerlessness while we merely and perversely watch satan's wholesale
> onslaught of the bulk of humanity? Or, rather, shouldn't we recognize
> that satan is indeed a theif, a liar, and a murderer, and dutifully wage
> warfare through speaking the truth in love?
> Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Do you not
> know that your faith is by it's own definition and substance absolutely
> radical, confrontational and offensive to the palates of sin in this
> world. Cursed are you who attempt to make the two compatible.
> Science MUST be advanced ONLY for the glory of God. To the extent
> that it is not, that is the precise extent to which man enslaves his
> brothers in the world including himself.
> The correct and true method of any scientific endeavor MUST be to
> speak the truth in love. Theistic evolution, and all evolutive
> indiscretions, God himself has a word for you, "Thou art weighed in the
> balances, and art found wanting."

William A. Wetzel
icq-uin# 13983514