On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 22:02:45 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
SJ>"If evolution is "*inherently* an anti-theistic theory", it would
>not change matters if Biblical events could be harmonised with it.
>The late great Dr Carl Henry drew attention that Biblical Creation
>and Evolution are antithetical concepts:
BTW. I may be wrong re "late". I saw Dr Henry recently wrote something
in a recent Christianity Today?
SJ>"The fundamental contrast between the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of
>creation and the Greek-modern doctrine of evolution is therefore
>crystal-clear. The Genesis creation account depicts a personal
>supernatural agent calling into existence graded levels of life by
>transcendent power. The Greek-modern theory depicts a simple
>primitive reality temporarily differentiated by immanent activity into
>increasingly complex entities that retain this capacity for future
>development." (Henry C.F.H., "Science and Religion", in Henry C.F.H.,
>ed., "Contemporary Evangelical Thought: A Survey", 1968, Baker, p252)"
>
GM>If you define evolution as "life coming into existence without
>God," then of course it is anti-theistic. But if you define
>evolution as "the means God used to bring the diversity of life after
>he created it," then it is impossible for it to be antitheistic.
>The whole problem is that christians who do not like evolution define
>things in such a way that the latter position is ruled out.
Dr Carl Henry is/was a highly respected evangelical theologian,
philosopher and leader. I would have thought he rated a little bit
more than a dismissive "christians who do not like evolution define
things in such a way that the latter position is ruled out"?
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"The real issue is: do we as Christians hold Biblical theism as
>our primary metaphysical framework and try to fit the scientific
>facts into that framework, or do we hold naturalistic science as our
>primary framework and try to fit the Bibical facts into that?"
>
SJ>All the evolutionists I have seen on this board hold theism as
>their primary metaphysical framework. I don't always agree with
>their Biblical interpretations, but then they don't always agree with
>me. That's O.K. We are all God's servants and as such it is God's
>job to straighten his servants out.
Agreed.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>"If we who are Christians really believe that God has spoken
>uniquely in and through the 66 volumes called the Hebrew-Greek
>scriptures, why do we tacitly assign that a lower priority? This is
>independent of the very real issue of interpreting those ancient
>Hebrew-Greek writings.
[..]
SJ>The alien spaceship's writings would be even more difficult to
>interpret, but that does not take away from the fact of their
>in-principle higher priority."
>
GM>We don't assign the Bible a lower priority. We interpret it
>differently but that does not mean that it is lower in priority
>unless only your interpretation can be defined as holding the Bible
>high.
I made no claim for my "interpretation". This is a trivialisation.
It is far more fundamental than mere "interpretation". It is about
our world-view. The first question is "do we hold to a fundamentally
Hebrew-Creationist world view or a Greek-Evolution one? The second
question is "do we interpret our science in the light of the Bible or
the Bible in the light of our science"?
>Stephen writes:
SJ>"1Ki 18:21 "And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long
>halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if
>Baal, then follow him...""
>
>Evolution is not Baal.
If "Evolution is not Baal", then judging by its effect on
Christianity, it is a pretty good imitation! Denton (a
non-Christian) points out:
"As far as Christianity was concerned, the advent of the theory of
evolution and the elimination of traditional teleological thinking was
catastrophic. The suggestion that life and man are the result of
chance is incompatible with the biblical assertion of their being the
direct result of intelligent creative activity. Despite the attempt
by liberal theology to disguise the point, the fact is that no
biblically derived religion can really be compromised with the
fundamental assertion of Darwinian theory. Chance and design are
antithetical concepts, and the decline in religious belief can
probably be attributed more to the propagation and advocacy by the
intellectual and scientific community of the Darwinian version of
evolution than to any other single factor.. It was because Darwinian
theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos
without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other
intellectual revolution in modern times (with the possible exception
of the Copernican) so profoundly affected the way men viewed
themselves and their place in the universe." (Denton M., "Evolution:
A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books, pp66-67)
God bless.
Stephen