Hi Jonathan,
I do think that the pursuit of science will eventually lead one to God. Not
because one is not able to explain everything but because it leads to the
notion of a Creator that gives validity to our experiences and our knowledge.
One can develop explanations and theories to describe nature without the aid
of a Creator but the description of man and his inner thoughts and fears are
only quenched with a knowledge of Jesus. No science can do that!
Take care,
Moorad
>===== Original Message From Jonathan Clarke <jdac@alphalink.com.au> =====
>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 - 20:38:08 EDT