Re: Science Education and the Church

From: Jan de Koning (
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 15:27:54 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: Science Education and the Church"

    At 08:31 AM 22/05/02 -0400, Walter Hicks wrote:
    >Jan de Koning wrote:
    > >
    > > At 02:27 PM 21/05/02 -0400, Walter Hicks wrote:
    > >
    > > >I again quote what Morris has published:
    > > >
    > > >"The essence of evolution, of course, is randomness. The evolutionary
    > > >process supposedly began with random particles and has continued by
    > > >random aggregations of matter and then random mutations of
    > > >genes."
    > > >If this is not the correct _scientific_ understanding of evolution, then
    > > >where is it wrong? and if it is wrong, then should it not be corrected
    > > >_scientifically_ (not theologically).
    > >
    > > Where do Christians working in science use this "new" (for Christians)
    > > definition? That non-Christians define concepts incorrectly is nothing
    > > new. That happened in Paradise already.

    I probably do not know where you asked the question, since I delete most of
    the subject headings which contain the word "evolution." My reason is,
    that I answered questions like yours very often, even on the ""
    listings. I am just as frustrated as you are about having to answer your
    question and similar ones time and again. I was in 1988 appointed by
    Christian Reformed Church synod in a committee that had to study
    evolution. Our report is published in the Agenda of the 1991 synod, pages
    367 - 434, which should still be available in different places I referred
    many times to it. This time I quote a few sentences from it. Page 394:
              "While there is ample evidence that evolution is for many both a
    scientific and a naturalistic worldview, one must acknowledge that there
    are Christian scientists who accept evolution as a scientific theory but
    reject the naturalistic view associated with it."
    then Polkinghorne is quoted from an article in Theology Today, April 1987.

        Page 395 goes on to quote from a rectoral address of Abraham Kuyper
    in1899. He rejected Darwinism because it taught the mechanical origin of
    all things without purpose and plan and assumed a materialistic doctrine of
    autonomous nature. A few sentences later Abraham Kuyper said we cannot
    impose on the Creator our style: "If it had pleased the Lord not to create
    the species as such, but to have one species arise from the other, by
    designing the preceding species in such a way that it could produce the
    next higher, the creation would be just as wonderful." This was despite
    the fact that the Theologian Kuyper did not believe that it was the way it
    happened. He still was not willing to condemn scientists who thought that
    itwas the way. He still considered it a possible theory for a Christian.
    The report notes the word evolution has various meanings, but it should not
    be problematic for biblically informed Christians. Other Christians are
    quoted. To distinguish between what Christians believe and what
    "un"believers believe in this matter, the report talks about an
    "Evolutionisic" Worldview and contrasts it with the Christian Worldview.
    Forgive me, if I after 15 plus years am often skipping postings in which I
    have to repeat, what I have so often said and in different places repeated,
    here on the asa forum as well.
    So, it is true, that when I see the word "Evolution" and then what follows,
    I think, "oh, not again. When will it stop, that people have not read what
    was said before and even often repeatedly."
    Jan de K.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 22 2002 - 21:11:29 EDT