Hi Jim,
I actually have to go and bring much thoughtfulness (?) to the pulpit in
about five minutes, so not too much time to respond!
If my remarks gave the impression that I think "evolution" necessarily
implies "accident" or that it necessarily excludes divine action, then I
have clearly not expressed myself adequately in this particular instance.
However, let's, just for the sake of argument, assume that I DO think of
evolution in such terms and ask the question: if I were a doctor, what
would such an understanding of life origins imply for my practice of
medicine?
It doesn't seem to me that the answer to THAT question is obvious. And
it may well be one which conflicts with the values we traditionally
associate with the medical fraternity.
In that respects, I wonder if a doctor who is an avowed YEC and who
holds - without compromise - the idea that all persons are created in
the image of God, might not _in some respects_ prove the better medical
practitioner?
None of which is, might I point out, something on which I "insist" - but
merely a musing on potentialities.
Blessings again,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
Jim Armstrong wrote:
> It saddens me that one who speaks with such thoughtfulness, and
> undoubtedly brings that to the pulpit as well, misses so much of the
> discussion as to insist that "evolution" unequivocally equates to
> "accidents", suggesting by extrapolation and implication that the
> remainder as well of the workings of Creation embodies no reflection of
> the Creator's intent.
>
> JimA [Friend of ASA]--
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 31 20:09:10 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 31 2008 - 20:09:10 EDT