I'm wondering if you might clarify your position for me. I'm
going to delete all except the protions I have a question
about.
At 05:01 AM 6/9/99 +0800, Steve wrote:
[...]
>
>Personally I would have no problem with even the most extreme form of
>Darwinist `blind watchmaker' evolution, if it were proved true, since the
>Bible teaches quite clearly that God is in total control of all events, even
>those that appear random to man (cf. Proverbs 16:33; 1 Kings 22:34).
>However, I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Darwinist `blind
>watchmaker' evolution is true, at least in any major sense.
>
>Two quotes that best sum up my position are those of Phil Johnson:
>
>"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," 1993,
>p14)
>
[...]
>
>My position has superficially a number of elements in common with
>naturalistic evolution, and some evolutionists (and creationists) may
>assume that I am just a crypto-evolutionist. NOTHING COULD BE
>FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. I believe that Naturalistic Evolution is a
>counterfeit of the genuine article, which is Mediate Creation. I also believe
>that Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms-if it was theistic,
then it
>was *creation* not evolution, and vice versa.
>
I wondered if you might clarify your statement:
"I also believe that Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms-if
it was theistic, then it was *creation* not evolution, and vice versa."
in view of your earlier comments above.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
-- E. H. Hiebert