Re: God could have worked through natural processes (was Evolutionary Information 1/2)

Stephen Jones (sejones@ibm.net)
Sun, 09 Aug 1998 16:08:40 +0800

Group

On Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:23:12 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:

>SJ>No "anti-evolutionary position" that I have ever encountered
>>"has...excluded God dealing in an indirect fashion". For example Phil
>>Johnson says that God could have worked "through a natural
>>evolutionary process":
>>
>>"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." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
>>Trial," 1993, p14)

GM>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

The key words are "indubitably true". Johnson (and I for that matter)
believe that God COULD have worked "through a natural evolutionary
process" but he (and I) do not believe that He MUST have.

That is the main difference between Johnson's (and my) Theistic Realist
position and Glenn's Theistic Naturalist position.

>SJ>Glenn here sets up a straw man argument so that his theistic-
>>naturalistic evolutionary position can win the point by default:

GM>No Stephen, Johnson really doesn't believe what your quote would
indicate.

Glenn is not just a geophysicist, but it seems he is a mind-reader too?

But in fact Johnson *does* believe that "God...could...have chosen to work
through a natural evolutionary process instead.". He says it many times in
his writings (and on his tapes):

"Of course, God could make some use of random mutation and natural
selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God can act freely as
He chooses: that is just the problem for those who would constrain God by
philosophy. God could employ mutation and natural selection or act
supernaturally, whether or not His choice causes inconvenience for
scientists who want to be able to explain and control everything," (Johnson
P.E., "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?" First Things, January1993, p12)

"...St. Augustine wrote many centuries ago that God is outside of time and
the Creator of time, and certainly God could use a gradual process of
creation over millions of years if that is what he wanted to do...we
shouldn't refuse to consider genuine scientific possibilities just because we
insist on reading Genesis more literally than perhaps its author intended."
(Johnson P.E., "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds," 1997, p14)

Indeed, Johnson says it *twice* on the *same page* that Glenn quotes
from:

"If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs,
or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently
recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted
as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create." (Johnson P.E.,
"Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin," Christianity Today, Vol. 38,
No. 12, October 24, 1994, p26)

and

"The primary point is not how long it took God to create, or whether he
created things abruptly or gradually, or whether the first chapters of
Genesis are to be interpreted literally or figuratively. These are all
important issues in their way, but they are secondary. The primary issue is
whether God created us at all." (Johnson P.E., Christianity Today, October
24, 1994, p26)

GM>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.

It is irrelevant to me whether Glenn reads my posts or not. None of my
responses to Glenn's posts are addressed to him any more-they are
addressed to *the Group*.

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------