In a message dated 7/1/00 10:14:00 AM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
writes:
[Below is my description of what I saw as PJ's unwillingness to acknowledge
providence. Formatting is messed up because the e-mail was sent in HTML
which becomes illegible by the time it passes trhough the reflector and then
AOL.]
> >"While I believe the evidence does not support the theory of evolution,
> >and while it has been abused as a tool by those pushing an atheist
> >agenda, the Christian faith does not suffer if it turns out that
> >evolution is true. God can create however He chooses, and is not
> >diminished if His work in creation was through 'natural' processes."
> The fact that Johnson would not agree to such a statement, which evensome
ID
> proponents on this list thought was agreeable, seems to confirm theclaim
> that he is unwilling to acknowledge God's ability to do his creativework
via
> his sovereignty over nature.
[End of my statement]
> I wrote Phil a note, asking him
> about his position on the doctrine of providence and his reasons for
refusing
> to endorse the above quotation. Here is whathe wrote back:
> "My views are explained in by writings, especially Reason in theBalance (
> the Appendix is particularly important) and The Wedge ofTruth. Among
> my views are these: (1) God can and does act bywhatever means He chooses,
> including superintendence of natural processes; and (2) I do not allow
other
> persons, especially persons who think in naturalistic categories, to
> put their own (vague) words in my mouth - e.g., "if evolution" (
> undefined) "turns out to be true" (as determined by reasoning based upon
> methodological naturalism?). The question is not what God can do but what
the
> neo-Darwinian mechanism can do, when its creative power has to be
> demonstrated by experiment rather than deduced from naturalistic
assumptions.&
> nbsp; I do not cooperate with attempts to evade that question."
> I think that pretty much settles the question.
I think that pretty much evades the question, as Johnson continues to avoid
explaining his theology of God's action in nature. He gives lip service to
God being able to work through natural processes. The question is, if
Johnson's evaluation of the evidence is incorrect and natural evolutionary
mechanisms really do explain (at a physical level; I'm not talking about
ultimate causation) the development of life (I fail to see what is "vague"
about such a statement), does that exclude God from being the Creator.
If so, then Johnson, if he is consistent, would also have to say that God is
not the creator of stars and mountains, since we have well-verified
explanations for their formation in terms of "naturalistic" mechanisms that
make no reference to God.
If not, then one may argue the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution
as a scientific question, but it should have no theological impact. In which
case Johnson's arguments are not defense of the faith, but just another
argument about whether or not scientific consensus is correct or not, much
like his writings on HIV and AIDS.
Maybe we could try him on another question:
From a theological standpoint, are explanations of the development of life in
terms of "natural" mechanisms incompatible with Christianity? If so, are the
"natural" explanations of the formation of mountains in terms of plate
tectonics also incompatible with Christianity?
I think all the arguments about the scientific evidence are a waste of time
until these fundamental philosophical issues about how God is allowed to act
in the world, and about what natural explanations "mean" metaphysically, are
thought through. Richard Dawkins thinks natural explanations like evolution
"mean" that God is not there. I disagree, based on what the Bible says about
God's sovereignty over nature. Phil Johnson *appears* to agree with Dawkins
on this fundamental view; at least he keeps dodging opportunities to disagree
with Dawkins' view of what evolution means. Once one agrees with Dawkins
there, one has sold out to semi-deism and must then argue against the science
as though the truth of the faith were at stake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 14:38:46 EDT