I do not know in what camp Gould falls into, but there are many who believe
that science can one day set up experiments where life can be made to emerge
from non-living matter--God could have created in that fashion but such acts
do not fall within the confines of science. Such people cannot be theists,
IMHO. Those who say: matter, nothing but matter, and all is matter are
espousing "philosophical materialism." I do not think that the data will
ever prove that man evolved from lower forms of life. One can assume that as
a working assumption but such type of assumptions cannot be used to disprove
the existence of a Creator---all such assumptions are on equal footing. I
recall someone saying that the Christian faith is not a religion because
religions (theologies) are men/women seeking God whereas in Christianity God
sought man/woman. It is true that in the final analysis the personal witness
of a Christian is the best way to present the Gospel and goes beyond
superegos and mental prowess. The question of origins is important since in
confronts man/woman with his/her limitations and is another venue for
"sensing" the presence of God. There is no doubt the Christian should tell
about Christ with clarity and humility, as one tells someone where the glass
is that one needs to break in case of fire.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Wendee Holtcamp <wendee@greendzn.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson's agenda
>Moorad,
>
>I agree with you that origins - specifically whether God created the
>universe and all life/things within it - is not something science can
>answer. Even Stephen Jay Gould (a self-proclaimed "agnostic Jew") says
this.
>It was my understanding that most scientists agree with this, and only the
>fringe think otherwise, but maybe that is incorrect?
>
>Can somebody give a good definition for "philosphical materialism" ? Do you
>just mean the philosophy that evolution (or whatever) disproves the
>existence of a Creator?
>
>I believe that God has given us freedom to pursue our own intellectual
>pursuits and interests, but we can't expect to really be doing God's will
>unless these pursuits line up with the Bible (or at least don't contradict
>it). Studying origins and theology is great for this life and earth, but is
>it promoting the cause of Christ? Someone else said this same thing (I
think
>Glenn?)
>
>Theology really gets the "church" nowhere, since the people who were most
>well-studied in Jesus' time (Pharisees) were typically the most incorrect
in
>their understanding. (Remember, Jesus said in a moment of joy that is was
>God's pleasure to hide things from the learned and show them to little
>children). That is not necessarily children in the age sense, but that
>non-theologically oriented Christians can have greater servant's hearts
than
>the most learned. And becoming very intellectual and having lots of degrees
>tends to inflate one's ego rather than promote humility. Power and money
are
>very similar that way.
>
>Why is origins so important? I'm curious what you think.
>
>I believe that we don't need to "Defend" God, or even Jesus. I've seen a
>statistic that some 80% of the world's people believe in a Creator and God.
>Sorting out Truth is more difficult. Truth, when seen clearly, stands on
its
>own. When we show the message of Christ with clarity and humility, God's
>seed won't come back ungerminated! Jesus said so himself.
>
>My best,
>
>Wendee
>
>>I have no qualms with what you are saying, but there is a time for
>>everything. People ought to know where we stand, we should not be ashamed
of
>>our faith. However, on the question of origins we have to go to the
>>foundation, which is whether the question of origins is indeed a
scientific
>>question or not. Some assume that it is, I assume that it is not. Herein
>>lies the philosophical discussion that Phil Johnson keeps emphasizing.