But when it is expert theologians who are the Christian anti-
evolutionists who are doing the citing of Simpson, Dawkins, Sagan, and
so on in this regard, then you can cite the expert theologians as
confirming what Simpson and others have said. And there is no lack of
such theologians. It is in the scientific area where the general picture
of the real world is pretty clear, and there is little disagreement.
(The debate is in the particulars.) It is the theological world that is
in disarray not only regarding the real world's history and its extent
in space and time but also regarding theological aspects that relate to
these issues, including humankind's place in these contradictory
theological conceptions of the real world.
But, yes, it's amusing to see someone cite Simpson's or some other
scientist's remarks about theological implications as gospel, while at
the same time he is disputing everything else the scientist says on the
However, it is quite clear that antiquity and biological evolution are
quite incompatible with particular kinds of biblical interpretations
and theological conceptions based on them, and in this respect Simpson
and others are correct. But it would be interesting to see someone like
Richard Dawkins, for example, directly address the points presented by
such a discussion as represented by Kenneth R. Miller in his book
*Finding Darwin's God*.
Todd S. Greene
###### George Murphy, 3/26/01 5:58 PM ######
"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Jim offered the following quotation in response to Bert's request:
>> How about this:
>> "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not
>> have him in mind"
>> George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, pp. 344-345.
>> Quoted by Johnson at the following:
> Two comments to keep in mind when quoting such a remark:
> 1. This is an expression of Simpson's personal belief, not a statement
> that is (or could be) the conclusion of purely scientific
> considerations. The scientific concept of evolution, for instance,
> does not lead to this conclusion, nor does it need it as a
> foundational presupposition.
> 2. Just because a preacher of naturalism (who also happens to be a
> prominent scientist) says "X", it does not follow that X is true or
> that X is considered to be true by the majority of scientists.
& a footnote to Howard's 2d footnote: Further statements by scientists
such as Simpson that therefore evolution is incompatible with
Christianity carry very little weight. I am amused when Christian
anti-evolutionists cite such statements approvingly, as if Simpson et
al were expert theologians.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 27 2001 - 13:51:19 EST