Re: Request for Advice/Death of ICR?

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:29:39 -0500 (EST)

At 07:37 AM 1/23/98 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>RDehaan237 wrote:
>
>> Several times you have mentioned that evolution needs to be presented in the
>> context of Christian doctrines of creation, and also, I believe, of
salvation.
>> At times you have hinted at this context and given us pieces of it. But I
>> don't recall your making any substantive exposition of what such theology
>> would look like. I would be interested in a more complete exposition of your
>> views, if only in outline form. Or have you published any such thing that is
>> generally available?
>
> My larger theological project, "chiasmic cosmology", is the
>attempt to deal with the science-theology dialogue in the context of a
>theology of the cross. It is presented, with brief application to
>evolution & some other topics, in an article in a few years ago in an
>article in _Trinity Seminary Review_ of Fall 1991, which I'll be glad to
>email to anyone who requests it. My paper in Vol.4 of the contributions
>from the Pascal Conference of a few years ago also discusses this.
> My book _The Trademark of God_ (Morehouse-Barlow, 1986) deals
>specifically with creation, evolution, and salvation: This was designed
>as a course for adult Christian laypeople. The book is out of print but
>I can supply copies (and have been told by some that they have been able
>to get it from Amazon). A some more scholarly treatment is "A
>Theological Argument for Evolution" in _Journal of the ASA_ _38_, 19,
>1986.
>
>George L. Murphy
>gmurphy@imperium.net
>http://www.imperium.net/~gmurphy

Dear George,

I see you have put much intellectual efforts in the science-theology
dialogue. I have often mentioned that one must know what science is and what
it is not and also what placing one's faith in Christ means. It is where
the two meet where the speculations and arguments arise. If I were to teach
people in my church about such issues I would merely teach the two ends and
indicate that where they meet is fraught with arguments and discussions. We
must make it very clear that scientists can assume, as a working hypothesis,
that a particular question is a scientific question. But the actual answer
may not be that given by the method of science. For instance, the question
of origins. I believe that would be the best approach where learning ensues
and polemics is kept to a minimum.

Take care,

Moorad