Keith
Can you point out to me specifically where he says that evolution must be
"disproved."
Bert Massie
Keith B Miller wrote:
> This is a rather clear statement by Johnson that evolution must be
> disproved in order to be able to accept a creator God.
>
> Keith
>
> >Here's a quote from an interview at:
> >http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/commsp99.htm
> >
> >CJ: Let's shift the discussion just a bit. At the bare bones level, what
> >essentials do you believe the Christian must maintain in the question of human
> >origins in order to remain essentially Christian?
> >
> >Phil: Well, the first thing, I guess, is the role of God as our Creator. The
> >evolutionary naturalists have been telling us that you don't need God in the
> >system, you don't need a creator in the system because these purposeless forces
> >can do it all. If they are right on that, then I would tend to think that
> >probably Christianity should be given up as a bad show, considering most of the
> >people that come to believe that that's what they conclude too. If God is an
> >illusion and the Bible's just been wrong about everything, and religious belief
> >is just believing what you want to believe and the facts show you that it
> >didn't happen that way, well then the logical conclusion it seems to me would
> >be not to try to save Christianity but to give it up as a mistake. Now, that's
> >one reason I was so interested in this field. Because, now, on the other hand,
> >if it turns out that the evolutionary theory is what's mistaken, and natural
> >selection has no creative power, and you have this whole scientific culture
> >that has been believing something dead against the evidence because that's
> >something they want to believe, then even without knowing any more about it, I
> >would say that the theistic and Biblical worldview has been tremendously
> >validated. That is to say it's been validated in the sense that you do need a
> >creator after all, but even more, what's been validated is the biblical view
> >that it's a major part of the human project to get rid of the creator; because
> >their deeds were evil, they did not want to honor god as God, and so instead
> >they imagined various forms of idolatry and nature worship of which Darwinian
> >evolution is just the most prevalent modern form. So, at this point, you say
> >that not only has it been revealed that science points to the reality of a
> >creator after all, but the enormously bad and self-deceptive thinking of the
> >Darwinian evolutionist is something straight out of Romans 1. Without going any
> >further than that, I'd say that the biblical worldview has been enormously
> >affirmed. When it comes to questions like "Is it really important that the
> >Genesis chronology be upheld?" or whatever, I'm more inclined to "hang loose"
> >on that. For one thing, I'm very much opposed to restrictions on considering
> >the evidence, and so it might be very convenient for us theologically if the
> >Genesis chronology is true, and so, for that reason we might want to believe
> >it, but that doesn't mean that the evidence necessarily supports it. If the
> >evidence overwhelmingly says that that chronology is not true, then we can't
> >make it true by wishful thinking. So, my basic inclination is to follow the
> >evidence wherever it leads, and then live with the consequences of that. What
> >has happened so far when we've done that is that the materialistic and
> >naturalistic view that dominates our culture has been shown to be
> >self-deceptive in every way. So I'm inclined to think we can afford to follow
> >that program forward courageously without being afraid of what the facts will
> >show.
>
> Keith B. Miller
> Department of Geology
> Kansas State University
> Manhattan, KS 66506
> kbmill@ksu.edu
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 15:56:48 EDT