I assumed that Russ was speaking about theologians not trained
in the natural sciences rather than scientists who are Christians. And
it's true that _some_ theologians have decided that they can "accept"
evolution without any very deep study of the science involved.
However, it's at least as serious a problem that theological
expertise is ignored in this area. There are certainly legitimate and
important scientific questions to be debated about evolution. But the
reason there is so much emotion and debate about it, and the reason
(assuming that the people involved cared about correct terminology)
there would be a "Mere Creation" conference, is _theological_. And too
much theological discussion is carried on by people without real
theological competence. Simply having an English translation of the
Bible does not make one a theologian.
Probably Russ didn't mean this, but speaking of the opposition
of "Christian intellectuals" to "theologians" doesn't put the latter in
a very good light. A lot of theologians are intelligent, many of them
are Christians (!) - and some have a knowledge of natural science. And
regardless of the failings of individual theologians, theological
competence is essential if discussions about "creation", "design" &c are
to have any point.
SHALOM,
George Murphy