I'm simply referring to the fact that we can be critical of atheistic
scientists who make theologically relevant statements about evolution
being incompatible with Christianity. My point is that the criticism is
misdirected. Such criticism should be directed toward those theologians
who make the same statements that these atheistic scientists have made.
John Whitcomb (co-author of *The Genesis Flood*)
Rev. Walter Lang
Francis Schaeffer (evangelical writer who frequently
wrote about theology and against evolution)
James I. Packer (co-author of *Darwinism Defeated?*)
Paul A. Bartz
J. P. Moreland (co-editor of *Three Views on Creation
And here's a nice summary statement from
There are many inconsistencies in the theory of Progressive
Creation. According to many conservative theologians, the
most dangerous of its teachings is the proposal that Adam and
Eve were created after the majority of earth's history had
already taken place, including eons of death among the
animals. Their timeline includes millions of years of major
disasters befalling the animals before Adam or sin, including
disease, famines, volcanic destruction, hurricanes,
tornadoes, asteroid impacts, supernovas etc. As a result,
animals frequently became extinct, never to be seen by man.
The belief that death existed prior to the fall undermines
the Bible's clear teaching that death is a result of sin (I
Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12). Any theory which places
man or animal death prior to the fall of Adam must be
You state that "the question is whether Christianity is really tied to
such interpretations." Yes, and that is a vexed question.
Todd S. Greene
###### George Murphy, 3/27/01 5:11 PM ######
"Todd S. Greene" wrote:
> Hi, George.
> 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.
I'm not sure what "expert theologians" you have in mind. I find it
hard to think of any modern theologian who could be described in that
way who would place any reliance on the theologically superficial
arguments of Dawkins or Sagan or who would present such arguments
> 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 topic.
> 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 of course the question is whether Christianity is really tied to
> 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*.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 27 2001 - 18:41:57 EST