Fwd: Johnson on Bible Answer Man

From: Keith Miller (kbmill@ksu.edu)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2003 - 21:51:07 EST

  • Next message: RFaussette@aol.com: "Re: Ruse's Science Article"

    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
    > candid.
    > ============================================
    > When I first took this up, I said I donít want to just write a book
    > about
    > 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
    > donít
    > want to talk about the Bible, I want to talk about the scientific
    > evidence.
    > And I want to get to the key question about Darwinism - the right
    > question,
    > which is what can this mechanism of natural selection actually do? -
    > what
    > does the evidence show? It never created anything and there is no
    > evidence
    > it ever created anything. So just in terms of the scientific evidence
    > you
    > 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
    > want
    > 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
    > into
    > 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
    > science
    > in its own right. But now when we go to the Bible we will go not to
    > the
    > 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
    > two
    > thirds of the way to the Trinity there.
    > Everything that was created was created through Him. So thatís where
    > we
    > talk about that, and that unifies the Christian world. Every body in
    > the
    > Christian world, be they young-earth creationists or old-earth
    > creationists
    > or Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox agrees that is a foundation text
    > of
    > 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
    > need
    > for a Word, intelligence and purpose, at the beginning. And then I go
    > from
    > John 1:1 to 14 to the next right question: if thatís really the truth,
    > then
    > if science supports it rather supports the Darwinian naturalistic
    > picture,
    > then why have our best and brightest, our geniuses, been so confused,
    > so
    > wrong?
    > 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
    > want
    > 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
    > idolatry.
    > 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
    > of
    > 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.
    > Iíve
    > wanted to unite the divided people - thatís the Christians, and divide
    > the
    > united people - thatís the evolutionary naturalists. So Iíve had to
    > develop
    > good relations between the people in the old earth way of thinking and
    > also
    > the young earth creationists, and Iíve had a great deal of success in
    > doing
    > it. Iíve been well treated on both sides.
    > Hank Hanagraaph: And if your asking the right questions, then this
    > becomes
    > 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
    > brief
    > 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
    > who
    > accept evolution in his ìbig tent.î Hereís what Johnson had to say
    > about
    > Ken Miller.]
    > Now the only reason I have to believe Kenneth Miller is a Christian of
    > any
    > 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
    > flies
    > 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,
    > at
    > the very least, a person whose mind is going in two directions. Such
    > people
    > 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