Re: Phil Johnson

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 18:08:44 EDT

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: Phil Johnson"

    Hi Moorad

    If I understand you correctly you seem to want there to be a natural theology,
    reached by some God of the gaps route. This has never worked so far, and I doubt
    it will ever work. I am not as hostile to natural theology as some here, but in
    the end the most we can get from natural theology is a vague deism, as in Paul
    Davies. We don't get to God revealed in Jesus, which is what Christianity is
    about. We get there by another route.



    "Moorad Alexanian" wrote:

    > X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
    > As I wrote you can do some intellectual gymnastics and reconcile your theology
    > with evolutionary theory. I am not ready to do that yet. However, within the
    > context of a scientific theory, it is hard to reach such a position that those
    > proposing it will throw up their hands and say there must be a God. One must
    > have a sort of Godel type theorem negating the possibility of evolutionary
    > theory in order for all scientists to discard it and become believers. I do
    > not think that is possible for otherwise there is no need of faith which goes
    > contrary to the nature of God. Moorad
    > >===== Original Message From Jonathan Clarke <> =====
    > >In what way is your statement "there is no way one can make sense of man
    > being
    > >created in the image of God in the context of any scientific theory"
    > different to
    > >the satement "there is no way one can make sense of A man being created in
    > the
    > >image of God in the context of any scientific theory"? In one you have the
    > image
    > >of God appearing in a historical context, the other is the appearance of God
    > in
    > >the context of specific individuals. If we can recognise the image of God in
    > each
    > >of us, even though there is good scientific evidence on how people are
    > conceived
    > >and develop (an entirely natural-seeing process), why should there be any
    > problem
    > >with evolutionary processes. Conversely, if evolutionary processes are fatal
    > to
    > >the image of God in the human race as a while, why not the whole process of
    > >conception and fetal development be fatal to the image of God in the
    > individual?
    > >
    > >In terms of being laughed at by committed evolutions, I assume you mean
    > people
    > >such as Dawkins, Provine et al. To such folk any theology is laughable so we
    > >should never let our theology be determined by them.
    > >
    > >
    > >GB
    > >
    > >Jon
    > >
    > >"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
    > >
    > >> X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
    > >> Sender:
    > >> Precedence: bulk
    > >>
    > >> It seems to me there is no way one can make sense of man being created in
    > the
    > >> image of God in the context of any scientific theory. Accordingly, such a
    > >> concept cannot exist in any evolutionary concept of the origin of man. One
    > can
    > >> develop a hybrid theory to salvage the Christian faith but it is laughable
    > by
    > >> committed evolutionists. The same is true of the notion of the Fall of Man.
    > >> Any explanation is as ad hoc as believing Genesis literally. Moorad
    > >>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 17:53:15 EDT