From: Keith Miller (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 21:51:07 EST
This is forwarded from another list. I send it without comment. it
speaks for itself.\
> Johnson was on Bible Answer Man recently, and as usual was quite
> When I first took this up, I said I donít want to just write a book
> Darwinism, I wanted to defeat the monster, and that required a
> strategy and
> that strategy is the wedge strategy.
> I had to first get the Bible out of this because thatís confusing. I
> want to talk about the Bible, I want to talk about the scientific
> And I want to get to the key question about Darwinism - the right
> which is what can this mechanism of natural selection actually do? -
> does the evidence show? It never created anything and there is no
> it ever created anything. So just in terms of the scientific evidence
> donít need to refer to the Bible. The theory collapses.
> But leaving it there isnít satisfactory because if I want to pursue my
> strategy of actually changing the world - actually ending this
> oppression of
> the oppressive Darwinian theory, then I need a lot of allies, donít I
> - lots
> of friends and allies.
> Now many conservative Christians get a little disturbed when you say I
> to get the bible out of this. Theyíll say, ìOh, you mean youíre just
> trying to get to a sort of a god of the philosophers. Like Aristotleís
> First Cause. Thatís no good. That doesnít get us anywhere.
> So at that moment I said, ìWell, now weíre going to bring the Bible
> this.î Of course, I never meant the Bible was going to be out of the
> picture permanently, but just that first we had to talk about the
> in its own right. But now when we go to the Bible we will go not to
> details of the creation account in Genesis - weíll go to John 1:1 to
> 14, the
> most basic teaching about the meaning of creation: In the beginning
> was the
> Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Weíre already
> thirds of the way to the Trinity there.
> Everything that was created was created through Him. So thatís where
> talk about that, and that unifies the Christian world. Every body in
> Christian world, be they young-earth creationists or old-earth
> or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox agrees that is a foundation text
> Christian faith: John 1:1 to 14. So we start there.
> And we see that in fact all logic, and science as well, points to the
> for a Word, intelligence and purpose, at the beginning. And then I go
> John 1:1 to 14 to the next right question: if thatís really the truth,
> if science supports it rather supports the Darwinian naturalistic
> then why have our best and brightest, our geniuses, been so confused,
> Weíll, the Bible answers that question. So the next part of the Bible
> I go
> to is Romans 1;20, which explains it all very, very well. They didnít
> to believe, so they make up an idol. This is idolatry - the idolatry
> of the
> products of the human mind, and the Darwinian theory is a particular
> form of
> So now weíve got the whole Bible system. Weíre operating in a Biblical
> paradigm rather than a naturalistic paradigm.
> Now, if you want, Hank, I can even get to the most explosive question
> all: what do I do about the division between the young-earth
> creationist and
> the old-earth creationists? Iíve been building a big tent movement.
> wanted to unite the divided people - thatís the Christians, and divide
> united people - thatís the evolutionary naturalists. So Iíve had to
> good relations between the people in the old earth way of thinking and
> the young earth creationists, and Iíve had a great deal of success in
> it. Iíve been well treated on both sides.
> Hank Hanagraaph: And if your asking the right questions, then this
> a intramural debate, a collegial debate, that we can have, once weíve
> established the right premise: in the beginning ....
> Johnson: Thatís correct. We donít have to agree, particularly right
> at the
> start. We just have to have a civilized way of talking about it,
> about what
> we disagree on, that enables us to make some progress towards agreeing.
> [At one point, Hank Hanagraaph brought up Ken Miller, and played a
> audio clip from the PBS Evolution series in which Miller says he is an
> orthodox Catholic and an orthodox evolutionist. Even though Johnson
> says he
> wants to unite the Christians, he obviously doesnít include Christians
> accept evolution in his ìbig tent.î Hereís what Johnson had to say
> Ken Miller.]
> Now the only reason I have to believe Kenneth Miller is a Christian of
> kind is because he says so. Maybe heís sincere, but I donít know
> that. If
> he is ...
> I can say this. You often find the greatest enemies of Christ in the
> church, even in high positions. There is a kind of person who may be
> sincere in a way, but is doubleminded - who goes into the church in
> order to
> save it from itself, by bringing it into concert with evolutionary
> naturalism, for example. These are dangerous people - they are more
> dangerous than an outside atheist like Richard Dawkins, who at least
> his own flag.
> So I am not impressed that somebody says that he is a Christian of a
> traditional sort and believes that evolution is our creator. This is,
> the very least, a person whose mind is going in two directions. Such
> often do a great deal of damage within the church.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 00:29:09 EST