Hi Moorad
I think the first part of your comment will happen only to people who are already
open to the gospel. Creation reveals God's power and glory, but only that. To
go further means to hear and obey what the Bible says about Jesus. As you
correctly say, this is beyond the purview of science.
GB
Jon
"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
> Sender: asa-owner@udomo5.calvin.edu
> Precedence: bulk
>
> 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 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 07:28:35 EDT