Hi Moorad
If I understand you correctly you seem to want there to be a natural theology,
reached by some God of the gaps route. This has never worked so far, and I doubt
it will ever work. I am not as hostile to natural theology as some here, but in
the end the most we can get from natural theology is a vague deism, as in Paul
Davies. We don't get to God revealed in Jesus, which is what Christianity is
about. We get there by another route.
GB
Jon
"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
>
> As I wrote you can do some intellectual gymnastics and reconcile your theology
> with evolutionary theory. I am not ready to do that yet. However, within the
> context of a scientific theory, it is hard to reach such a position that those
> proposing it will throw up their hands and say there must be a God. One must
> have a sort of Godel type theorem negating the possibility of evolutionary
> theory in order for all scientists to discard it and become believers. I do
> not think that is possible for otherwise there is no need of faith which goes
> contrary to the nature of God. Moorad
>
> >===== Original Message From Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au> =====
> >In what way is your statement "there is no way one can make sense of man
> being
> >created in the image of God in the context of any scientific theory"
> different to
> >the satement "there is no way one can make sense of A man being created in
> the
> >image of God in the context of any scientific theory"? In one you have the
> image
> >of God appearing in a historical context, the other is the appearance of God
> in
> >the context of specific individuals. If we can recognise the image of God in
> each
> >of us, even though there is good scientific evidence on how people are
> conceived
> >and develop (an entirely natural-seeing process), why should there be any
> problem
> >with evolutionary processes. Conversely, if evolutionary processes are fatal
> to
> >the image of God in the human race as a while, why not the whole process of
> >conception and fetal development be fatal to the image of God in the
> individual?
> >
> >In terms of being laughed at by committed evolutions, I assume you mean
> people
> >such as Dawkins, Provine et al. To such folk any theology is laughable so we
> >should never let our theology be determined by them.
> >
> >
> >GB
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> >
> >> X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
> >> Sender: asa-owner@udomo5.calvin.edu
> >> Precedence: bulk
> >>
> >> It seems to me there is no way one can make sense of man being created in
> the
> >> image of God in the context of any scientific theory. Accordingly, such a
> >> concept cannot exist in any evolutionary concept of the origin of man. One
> can
> >> develop a hybrid theory to salvage the Christian faith but it is laughable
> by
> >> committed evolutionists. The same is true of the notion of the Fall of Man.
> >> Any explanation is as ad hoc as believing Genesis literally. Moorad
> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 17:53:15 EDT