On Tue, 20 Feb 1996 15:00:26 -0500 you wrote:
TG>I'm still inclined to say that people's resistance to evolutionary
>theory stems primarily from a belief that Christian theology
>requires/favors a special creationist/interventionist mode of
>creation and that they are worried about the apologetic impact of an
>evolutionary account (--like Phil Johnson's view that if God's
>activity is not evident then he is a superfluous add-on to our
>thinking). I think that Stephen's own posts over the past year is
>evidence of the former. I happen to disagree and am much more open
>to the evolutionary account than he is as a result.
BH>1. I believe one of the most compelling reasons for creationist
>opposition to evolution is a concern that children will interpret it
>to mean that God is at best unnecessary and at worst nonexistent.
Not just "children". Creationists are equally concerned that as the
evolutionary paradigm takes hold it becomes much more difficult to
evangelise adults.
BH>2. Re Terry's remark about "Phil Johnson's view that if God's
>activity is not evident then he is a superfluous add-on to our
>thinking". An implication of this view, IMO, is that however God
>goes about performing His oversight of nature, man can detect it.
There is here the usual TE blurring of Creation and Providence. :-)
There is no dispute that in His regular "oversight" of the world, God
acts largely through secondary causes, and therefore in general a
naturalistic explanation is adequate. That eukaryotic cells with
mitochondria and chloroplast organelles reproduce "after their kind",
and this can be describes naturalistically, is not in dispute. What
is in dispute is the *origin* of those eukaryotic organelles. The
naturalistic and theistic evolutionists would argue that because the
*operations* of such biosystems can be described fully
naturalistically, therefore the *origins* of the same biosystems can
also be described fully naturalistically.
OTOH creationists (both Fiat and Progressive) would question that
assumption. They would argue on the analogy of Genesis 1 (eg. Gn
1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation..." ), that it is
possible (if not probable) that the origin of higher taxa such as
eukaryotes, cannot be described fully naturalistically, and required
the creative intervention of God.
It is indeed possible that God has created the living world in such a
way that man cannot detect it, but this would mean that it is
indistinguishable from naturalistic evolution. This seems at odds
with the general expectation that God's works in nature should resist
a naturalistic interpretations of origin (see ReMine W.J., "The Biotic
Message", 1993, p20), in order that man is "without excuse" (Rom
1:20).
BH>Isn't that giving men credit for abilities they don't necessarily
>have? People like Richard Dawkins of course fall into the same
>error when they claim that since they can find no evidence of God
>from their investigations, God doesn't exist. Again they're assuming
>that no matter how God goes about His oversight, if He indeed were
>doing so, they could detect it. Both views seem to me to be
>man-centered. God's instructions for how men can know Him include
>Hebrews 11.
There is a difference between all men being aware that God exists so
that they are "without excuse" (Rom 1:20) and them knowing that God
personally (Heb 11).
If we Christians grant that atheists like Dawkins can indeed "find no
evidence of God from their investigations", then we would be
hard-pressed to deny that they would be perfectly justified in
claiming that "God doesn't exist".
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------