From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 17:39:41 EST
Can a person who is a Christian write as PJ does?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
>>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 ...
Wow. My opinion on PJ just took a nosedive.
Thanks for posting this.
>From: Keith Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Fwd: Johnson on Bible Answer Man
>Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:51:07 -0600
>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.
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 17:53:19 EST