Re: [asa] Harvard study

Here's what bothers me about it: *"For all the PhDs that Harvard may hand
out—and for all the good science they may do—none of it is important when it
comes to eternity." *To me, this suggests an impoverished view of vocation,
common grace, and the Kingdom of God. "Good" science, like other sorts of
"good" work, is "important," even if it isn't specifically gospel
proclamation.

On 10/28/06, Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> Again, it seems like the writer does not register that this says nothing
> about God one way or the other (at least without more information on the
> project or researcher's perspective).
> This is just akin to the science-disproves-God assertion again.
> Even if he achieves the stated objective (which seems to deal only with
> the life origin question), it does not seek to answer the "who" or "why"
> questions.
> Consequently it leaves open Howard Van Till's conceptualization (for
> example) of a creation sufficiently endowed from the outset to achieve
> God's creative purpose through subsequent natural (God-created) processes.
>
> This need not be faith-shaking. A non-scientific explanation might offer
> that our understanding of creature life, plant development, human
> knowledge, solar cycles, etc. seems to be always about becoming, as
> contrasted with simply being or doing. We are very familiar with this
> way of framing the Christian experience, . . . transformation, . . .
> becoming. It might not then be all that surprising should the whole of
> Creation also be shown fairly definitively [within the constraints of
> our particular space-time existence] to also be continuously developing,
> becoming, unfolding,. . . dare I say, . . . evolving, . . . as
> contrasted with being brought into some of finished, completed state of
> being. There is nothing compelling that commends a conclusion that a
> creation that is complete and "good" has no "mission", . . . no
> continuing trajectory toward the future that involves continued change.
> Or so it seemeth to me.
> JimA
>
> burgytwo@juno.com wrote:
>
> >Latest AIG blurb, with which I have some sympathy. Too bad they did
> >not identify the yahoo from Harvard whose quote they lifted.
> >
> >Q: Is an Ivy League school really spending millions of dollars to
> >prove there's no God?
> >
> >A: These days it seems as though everyone is jumping into the
> >creation/evolution debate. Not wanting to be left out, Harvard
> >announced a new multimillion dollar research project, the "Origins of
> >Life in the Universe Initiative." They're setting aside $1 million a
> >year to try to prove what they already believe.
> >
> >Listen to what a Harvard professor of chemistry and chemical biology
> >told the New York Times about the origin of life: "My expectation is
> >that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of
> >logical events that could have taken place with no divine
> >intervention."
> >
> >For all the PhDs that Harvard may hand out—and for all the good
> >science they may do—none of it is important when it comes to
> >eternity. If they're producing atheists, then what's the point in the
> >long run?
> >
> >As Matthew 16 tells us, "What profit is it to a man if he gains the
> >whole world, and loses his own soul?"
> >
> >Burgy
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 28 14:03:40 2006