On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 11:32:53 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen, you wrote (again)
>Yes. I am struck by the fact that the EC/TC Christians do not seem to
>make any allowance for the effect of Satan on materialist-naturalists'
>thinking.
>
SC>You posed this as a question a while back--to which I now answer as
>some do and some don't. The same answer would apply to
>premillenialists, postmillenialists, sprinklers, and immersers. Pick
>any group of Christians and the answer will be the same. That's the
>problem when we assume that a group of people who share a common
>viewpoint also share identical beliefs in other areas.
Agreed. My statement was perhaps too wide a generalisation. I realise
we cannot bring Satan into normal scientific discussions. But as
Christians we should be aware of his subtle influence.
SC>You seem less concerned about Satan's possible role in promoting
>certain theistic dogma (which I infer from the tone and content of
>your recent posts)?
I fail to see how you deduce that! <g>
SC>Do you think Satan may play a bigger role in materialism-naturalism
>than in religionism?
I have no brief for "religionism". No doubt Satan is very happy with
it! As for "materialism-naturalism" I find it difficult not to regard
it as a major part of Satan's war against God.
SC>If so, why? if not, then why focus your concerns there? These
are not rhetorical questions, I am interested in your opinions.
Thank you for your interest in my opinions, Steven.
SJ>If 2Th 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion,
>that they should believe a lie", does not apply also to Darwinism,
>then I wonder what it does apply to.
SC>How about religionism and its demand for conformity and adherance
to
>certain orthodoxies that God never intended for us?
I agree. It probably applies to that too.
SC>Which is more frightening to you, a fossil hunter who claims his
research
>disproves the existence of God, or a theist who questions the quality of
>faith of his brothers who adhere to a different scientific viewpoint?
Neither is "frightening" to me. I cannot imagine how a "fossil
hunter" could claim his research disproves the existence of God. The
best he could claim is that it disproves some theories of how God
created.
As for "a theist who questions the quality of faith of his brothers
who adhere to a different scientific viewpoint", that is not valid
either. I don't see how one could deduce "the quality" of someone
else's "faith", based solely on his/her "scientific viewpoint".
For the record Steven, I do *not* think bad of Theistic Evolutionists,
on this Reflector, or indeed generally. If I have conveyed that
impression I apologise. The finger I point has three pointing at me.
This is a hard medium, and it is even harder because there is a large
cultural gap between us. Most of you are scientists who live in the
USA, where fundamentalism is very strong. I am not a scientist and I
live in Perth, Western Australia, which is perhaps the most isolated
Western capital city in the world. Fundamentalism has not anywhere
near the same strength here, and it almost inconceivable that
Creation-Science could be taught in our schools.
I keep getting vibes back that that I am some sort of rednecked YEC
from the antipodes. Nothing could be further from the truth! I was a
YEC when I first became a Christian 28 years ago! I repeat what I
said when I joined the Reflector, that I identify strongly with
Phillip Johnson's statement of his personal position:
"I am a philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God
exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but who
might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process
instead. I am not a defender of creation-science..." (Johnson P.E.,
"Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press,
Illinois, p14).
As I have said, I may one day accept Theistic Evolution as God's way
of developing his creation. However at present I believe Progressive
Creation is a better model, both Biblically and scientifically. I
think Darwinism is a good theory at the micro-evolutionary level, but
not such a good theory at the macro-evolutionary level.
God bless.
Stephen