Jon wrote:
>Then there is the unanswered question as to why is biology singled out. The
>question "How did creating get done without God?" could be applied with equal
>force to rocks, planet, stars, and galaxies, and the universe. Indeed, it would
>also be applied to the individual. The fact that Johnson does not suggests that
>either he sees the evidence for naturalistic creation of these things as
>overwhelming, or that in regards living things as fundamentally different from non
>living things in the nature of their creation - a closet vitalist perhaps. I
>wonder how he regards the formation of the individual person?
This seems strangely similar to the position of Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe). Ross (an astronomer) finds no problems in the long and "natural" history of the formation of the universe as a whole: Big Bang (the beginning of space and time by God), small density fluctuations that gravitationally lead to galaxies, gravity leading to stars that live for billions of years. These all form according to "natural" laws established by God.
BUT he stops at biology. Biological evolution is all wrong, biologists are mathematical simpletons and should know that Darwinian mechanisms cannot work. God created virtually each new species when needed them.
I don't want to sound totally negative. I feel more comfortable with Ross than others who speak against evolution. I don't question the depth of his faith nor the impact of his ministry. He is able to speak to groups that will never, never, never hear the Morris's of the world. He also tries to keep up with current research (although he is rather quick to jump on every bandwagon).
Al McCarrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 08:17:28 EDT