Re: P.J. Bowler book

From: Steve Bishop (
Date: Sun Jan 13 2002 - 14:25:46 EST

  • Next message: Michael Roberts: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"


    You wrote

    >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 [41] <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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 13 2002 - 14:26:31 EST