Re: Johnson// evolution implies atheism

From: Dan Eumurian (cen09460@centuryinter.net)
Date: Wed Jul 12 2000 - 07:09:07 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Johnson// evolution implies atheism"

    Joel Cannon wrote: [in part]
    >
    > Allan Harvey, responding to Bryan posted the following concerning
    > Phillip Johnson's evolution implies atheism beliefs.
    >
    > >
    > > In a message dated 7/7/00 10:49:08 PM Mountain Daylight Time, crossbr@SLU.EDU
    > > writes:
    > >
    > > > Also, I asked for substantiation for the claim that
    > > > according to Johnson "macroevolution disproves God". >
    >
    > > Though Johnson does not use the word "macroevolution", that is clearly what
    > > he means when he talks about an "evolutionary process that was to all
    > > appearances mindless and purposeless."
    > >
    > > Again I come back to my earlier point that, even if Johnson and the rest of
    > > the ID crowd do not believe it, the church hears the (unhealthy) message of
    > > total incompatibility between evolution (beyond little bits of
    > > microevolution) and theism. If that is a misunderstanding of the message,
    > > Johnson has dodged innumerable opportunities to correct the
    > > misconception. Instead, he seems to revel in being the guy who is battling
    > > the natural explanations of science in order to save God from being pushed
    > > out of existence.
    > >
    >
    > In fact, a number of Johnson's friends understand Johnson to hold that
    > evolution implies atheism or something close to it. At the very
    > least, they do not consider it worth refuting.

    This sounds to me to be a question as to how obvious God chooses to be.
    A guest on "Conversations with Jean Feraca" on Wisconsin Public Radio a
    couple of years ago argued that the universe is a self-generating,
    closed system, calling that supposed fact "neat." A few observations:

    1) If a phenomenon inspires the adjective "neat," either the source of
    that phenomenon has an artistic flair, or the beholder should be
    accorded godlike qualities for descrying neatness where there is none.

    2) There is biblical justification for seeing the workings of God as
    non-obvious. Examples include the "Messianic Secret" exhibited in Mark
    1:43-45; 4:10-12; 5:43, etc.; Jesus' refusal to produce miracles on
    demand (cf. Matthew 12:38-39), and Paul's references to the Psalms,
    Moses and Isaiah in Romans 10:18-20.

    3) If God worked in natural history through a process of variation and
    selection, perhaps there are traces of that process in salvation history
    (Heilsgeschichte) as well. Possible examples include the history of
    Israel's sin and judgment and the survival of a remnant; Jesus'
    references to the delegation of authority (stewardship--cf. Matthew
    25:14-30) and subsequent rewards and punishments, and the references to
    overcomers in Revelation 2-3. If these are not direct connections,
    perhaps the processes are at least compatible.

    I suggest that just as God, who began the process of natural history,
    occasionally intervened in it for the higher purpose of salvation as
    recorded in Scripture, so he will occasionally make exceptions to the
    natural laws and processes he has instituted. The exceptions justify the
    rule, and both the rule and the exceptions glorify the Ruler.

    JMVHO,

    Dan Eumurian
    M.A. in Theological Studies (Wheaton)
    hope4you@CenturyTel.net
    La Crosse, WI



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 12 2000 - 11:56:39 EDT