From: George Murphy (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 07:59:51 EST
A few comments on the following -
1) Johnson, in his comments on Jn.1:1-14 seems (like Dembski in _Intelligent
Design_) to focus on the pre-incarnate Word with little attention to "made flesh" & "his
glory" (which in John points to the cross). The possibility that the cross is essential
for our understanding of who God is & how God acts doesn't seem to occur to him.
2) Similarly, it doesn't seem to occur to him that the Intelligent Designer
might be one of the idols that Paul refers to in Roman 1:18-31.
3) His Rom.1:20 explanation of why people accept evolution might apply to an
atheist but hardly to Christians who believe that the God revealed in Christ is the
creator _and_ that evolution has occurred.
4) "Doesn't seem to occur to him" is the operative phrase for Johnson. He
apparently "knew" all the right scientific & theological answers to begin with.
Keith Miller wrote:
> 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.
-- George L. Murphy firstname.lastname@example.org http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 08:03:58 EST