> And further we have:
>
> A) Of course, Johnson is not a 'Dr.' , either.....
>
> ************** neither was Einstein.
Einstein had a Ph.D. As a matter of fact, one of the top workers on
Eastern Pacific bivalves is a lawyer; I do not know what formal biological
training he had. Johnson does not try to claim greater academic
credentials than is warranted, as far as I know, though in the earlier post
the correspondant claimed more knowledge of paleontology for him than he
shows. The problem is not that he does not have formal training in
evolutionary biolgy or paleontology; instead, the problem is that he does
not accurately represent current facts or views in these fields. More
seriously, and I think the cause of his credulity towards unreliable
sources on science, his theological claims have serious problems. He
accepts the theological claims of atheists like Dawkins with regard to the
implications of evolution. It should be rather obvious to Christians that
an atheist has theological problems. A scientific explanation, such as
biological evolution, should be considered an attempt at describing how God
normally does things. A description of how God does things is not valid
evidence against God being involved. Evolution is actually a smart design
for dealing with certain problems.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 27 2000 - 12:25:06 EDT