TG
_________
To the evolution group:
Let's keep this dialogue about Romans 1 going with the following observation:
The state of all people, apart from saving faith, is the suppression of the
truth of God. The point of this passage, in the fuller context of Paul's
argument in Romans, is not to legitimize an argument from design. Rather,
despite the evidence from creation and from within, evidence that leaves
all mankind without excuse, the only thing that unbelieving humans do is
deny the true and living God and worship and serve some god rooted in
creation or their own imagination.
It is not only atheistic "methodological naturalists" that commit this
heinous affront on God's being and prerogative, but anyone outside the
Biblical faith. The conclusion of this argument is in Romans 3:10-18.
"There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands,
there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside..." It is only
through the redemption that is found in Christ and by faith in him that the
true knowledge of God comes. This includes the knowledge of his activity
in creation. You see, Dawkins and company, the scientists and the
philosophers at the AAAS who are unbelievers, cannot see the evidence of
God in creation by virtue of their religious condition. They are blinded
by their own futile speculations, by their wicked exchange of the truth of
God for a lie, and by God's giving them over to the immorality that flows
from such false religion.
Confession of design in creation is rooted in a prior faith commitment. In
order to recognize design, you must recognize a designer, and only those
who have been, by the grace of God, rescued from this blindness described
in Romans 1, do that. As I have said over and over, those of us who are
believers who share the dominant scientific perspective of the day find the
anti-religion of many spokespersons of science as reprehensible as Phil
Johnson does. I think that we have striven to point out such problems.
Howard Van Till has given as much time arguing against atheistic
evolutionism has he has arguing against recent creationism and the
"intelligent design" hypothesis.
My point is always that this is unavoidable. Dawkins "needs" (religiously,
epistemologically, and I dare say, psychologically) every bit of ammunition
in the atheist arsenal to deny the reality of God's existence and his own
pending appearance before the judgment throne. At its most fundamental
level, life is religion. We either worship and serve the true and living
God who has, by his mercy, raised us out of the miry condition common to
all of humanity, or we deny him and commit idolatry by worshiping and
serving some god of our own vain imaginations. This antithesis runs
through all of life and epistemologically it precedes any human enterprise.
As for myself, I despise the term "methodological naturalism". However, in
practice, I probably look very much like one. My "naturalism" is not
rooted in some neutrality of science or in some naturalistic worldview, but
rather in a view of God's creative and governing work in this created world
that leads me to expect order, causality, regularity, etc: all the things
necessary for the doing of science. No doubt all of us who are Christians
who are also scientists share this view when it comes to so-called
"operation science". Why geology, cosmogeny, and evolution are such
stumbling blocks always bewilders me. It is easy to see in the case of
recent creationism whose starting point is a particular interpretation of
the Genesis text and, while I disagree, at least I understand the line of
reasoning. It is much more bewildering to me in the case of those who
don't share that particular interpretation.
To those of the group who don't always appreciate it, sorry about the
return to theology. However, because life is religion, such a return is
unavoidable.
Terry G.
_________________________________________________
Terry M. Gray Phone: (616) 957-7187
Department of Chemistry Internet: grayt@calvin.edu
Calvin College
3201 Burton SE
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801