RE: Phil Johnson

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 20:37:32 EDT

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "RE: Phil Johnson"

    Hi Jonathan,

    I do think that the pursuit of science will eventually lead one to God. Not
    because one is not able to explain everything but because it leads to the
    notion of a Creator that gives validity to our experiences and our knowledge.
    One can develop explanations and theories to describe nature without the aid
    of a Creator but the description of man and his inner thoughts and fears are
    only quenched with a knowledge of Jesus. No science can do that!

    Take care,


    >===== Original Message From Jonathan Clarke <> =====
    >Hi Moorad
    >If I understand you correctly you seem to want there to be a natural
    >reached by some God of the gaps route. This has never worked so far, and I
    >it will ever work. I am not as hostile to natural theology as some here, but
    >the end the most we can get from natural theology is a vague deism, as in
    >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
    >> with evolutionary theory. I am not ready to do that yet. However, within
    >> context of a scientific theory, it is hard to reach such a position that
    >> proposing it will throw up their hands and say there must be a God. One
    >> 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
    >> 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
    >> image
    >> >of God appearing in a historical context, the other is the appearance of
    >> in
    >> >the context of specific individuals. If we can recognise the image of God
    >> 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
    >> to
    >> >the image of God in the human race as a while, why not the whole process
    >> >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
    >> >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
    >> the
    >> >> image of God in the context of any scientific theory. Accordingly, such
    >> >> concept cannot exist in any evolutionary concept of the origin of man.
    >> can
    >> >> develop a hybrid theory to salvage the Christian faith but it is
    >> by
    >> >> committed evolutionists. The same is true of the notion of the Fall of
    >> >> Any explanation is as ad hoc as believing Genesis literally. Moorad
    >> >>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 20:38:08 EDT