I don't believe Johnson really believes that. If he did he wouldn't write
things like:
"The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with
theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheisitic. To accept the
answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that
generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the
accomodationist position is not 'theistic evolution,' but rather theistic
naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error." ~ Phillip E.
Johnson, "Shouting 'Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin,"Christianity Today
Oct. 24, 1994, p. 26
>
>Glenn here sets up a straw man argument so that his theistic-
>naturalistic evolutionary position can win the point by default:
No Stephen, Johnson really doesn't believe what your quote would indicate.
I didn't read the rest of your post, if anyone wants an answer to a
particular point please raise it and I will respond.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm