Re: [asa] Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution

And do you consider yourself a 'mystic scientist,' Rev. Roberts or do you strictly separate the two (science and mysticism)? If yes to the former, then how does that manifest itself in your views of Charles Darwin? It seems clear to notice that 'nothing...except...evolution' (even not just in biology and geology, but also in one's theology!) is a position that non-mystics tend toward more commonly than do mystics. One might rather easily argue that Darwin missed much of 'the vision glorious' in his scientific model of the universe. Would you accept such a characterisation of Darwin's legacy, Michael? Gregory   ________________________________ From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> To: Cameron Wybrow <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; asa <asa@calvin.edu> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:17:44 PM Subject: Re: [asa] Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution Cameron This is your best post yet and your first one liner! Behind the humour is some excellent understanding. We often miss the vision glorious. Till with vision glorious Her longing eyes are blest and the great Church victorious shallbe the church at rest. Hymn The church's one foundation by Samuel Stone written in response to Essays and Revues 1862 ----- Original Message ----- >From: Cameron Wybrow >To: asa >Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:46 PM >Subject: Re: [asa] Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution > > >David C.: >  >Any Christian who isn't *also* a mystic is simply a Deist who has some peculiar historical beliefs about Jesus.  (Tee hee.) >  >Cameron. >  >  >----- Original Message ----- >>From: David Clounch >>To: Dehler, Bernie >>Cc: asa@calvin.edu >>Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:33 PM >>Subject: Re: [asa] Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution >> >>I thought afterward that it may look like I was jumping to a conclusion. I did not mean to do that. Thats why I posed the statement with a "seem to be endorsing".  It isn't a given that that is what you were really saying.  But its a strong possibility?  Is that fair?  Others saying similar things might indeed be embracing atheism? >> >>My real thought was that it is the responsibility of the theists to give you a reason why atheism isn't the right choice here.   And....can you see why the Ken Ham's of the world  >>take a dim view of  the more liberal Christian worldviews? They see that slippery slope that Ted wrote about in his article (it shows up on my facebook page I think). >> >>I don't think your problem is evolution. Its more complicated.  Its perhaps grokking the role of naturalism? Is that fair?  But evolution will get the blame because of the way you stated your worldview changing experience.   That is probably unfortunate. >> >>So, to put my humor hat on, being a Christian Agnostic is sometimes almost as bad as being a Christian Mystic  tee hee >> >>   >> >> >>David C. said: >>>“Atheism, the worldview you seem to be endorsing Bernie…” >>>  >>>I’m a Christian agnostic … still sorting things out… >>>  >>>…Bernie >>> >>> >> __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 13 18:47:42 2009