Re: Fw: Ohio Votes 13-5 to Adopt Lesson Plan Critical ofEvolution

From: Phillip Jones <pcjones5@comcast.net>
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 21:36:36 EST

Denyse wrote:
>> TE usually seems to mean that there is no evidence for God's intelligence
or agency in the world we see. Faith is then an exercise in irrational
choice. <<

If there was ever any viewpoint that best demonstrated a lack of
intelligence in God, it is the most definitely _not_ the TE view that
recognizes and appreciates His complex and intricate creative ability over
millions of years. No, the award goes to the view that God waved a magic
wand for a week and *poof* God created.

>> In other words, theistic evolutionism is a classic "modernist" point of
view. Science is rational but faith is not. <<

If I understand you correctly, you think TE attempts to replace faith with
empirical science. Yet, it is quite the contrary. While YEC and some ID
leaders push faith toward absurdity by asking Christians to have faith in
the claim that the thousands of pro-evolutionary scientific findings are
invalid, TE attempts to defend faith by showing that empirical data points
to a high probability for the existence of our Creator.

I agree that critical thinking toward "Darwinism" (I take it you meant
atheistic evolution) should not be ignored. But for the cause of Christ it
seems best to aim critical thinking towards those who practice a
questionable hermeneutical method by interpreting Genesis in absence of
authorial intent and thus neglect the theological meaning of the text. The
publicity from the YEC movement has probably done more damage for the cause
of Christ than any publicized pastoral infidelity controversy, and has left
the intellectual crowd wondering if Christians are at all aware of the
concept of critical thinking.

The equating of evolution to atheism has a resounding gong that I encounter
every time I attend an amateur astronomy event. Scientifically inclined
people choose not to believe in God, or to ignore the gift of Salvation
because they have been led to believe it is not compatible with their
understanding of science.

-Phil
Received on Mon Mar 15 21:36:28 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Mar 15 2004 - 21:36:29 EST