>I looked up your paper and liked it very much on the whole.
Many thanks, I do appreciate you taking the time and effort to do so.
>My main reservation is your footnote  <snip>
Yes, you are correct. I was mistaken to identify Berry's views on evolution
as being similar to Barnes. All I was suggesting was that some evangelicals
have a similar view of Adam and a literal fall to Barnes's. I wasn't
suggesting for one moment that Berry has the same views as Barnes regarding
the virgin birth or the resurrection!
Are you suggesting that there are *no* evangelicals who hold a similar
position to Barnes regarding the fall and Adam?
>I would suggest this error and misrepresentation of Sam Berry is removed as
>soon as possible.
I shall ask the editor if it is possible to publish a corrigendum to remedy
my mistake. Thnaks for pointing it out.
>On Barnes you could/should have made it clear that he swallowed the
>thesis of science and religion hook line and sinker.
Good point - thanks.
>I find there are two groups of Christians who seem to adopt the conflict
>thesis of science and religion to justify their theologies. <snip>
Yes, I would agree. Though I would say that there are two distinct positions
within this conflict position: a science replaces religion (e,g. Draper,
White etc.); and a religion replaces science (the extreme creationists). I
develop this in my 'A typology for sciene and religion' <I>Evangelical
Quarterly</I> <b>LXXII</b> (1) (2000): 35-56.
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 13 2002 - 14:26:31 EST