Either you incorrectly remember others' statements, or you're just making
this up because it sounds good (possible), or (most likely) you're putting
your or Johnson's "ECs -must- think this!!" words into the mouths of others.
That is very unfair and either sloppy (probably) or dishonest (probably
not).
What you should say is that -you don't understand how- Christians can
staunchly defend evolutionary theory without that premise.
That assertion would be true (right?), perspicuous, and perspicacious;
unlike your current assertion, which is both (1) false, and (2) about EC's
thinking instead of your own, and which is therefore refuted every time an
EC authentically reports otherwise. (Or are you just claiming they're
lying?? Now -that- would be a step forward in the discussion....)
No need to reply to this note unless you really feel you have to.
--John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo2.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Jones
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 6:10 PM
> To: Evolution Reflector
> Cc: John E. Rylander
> Subject: RE: God could have worked through natural processes (was
> Evolutionary Information 1/2)
>
>
> John
>
> On Sun, 9 Aug 1998 21:42:11 -0500, John E. Rylander wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> JR>And let's not forget here that Stephen's persistently made
> claim is false,
> >and has been refuted and then simply repeated many times over the months.
>
> The "claim" presumably refers to my statement (at the foot of
> your message)
> that:
>
> SJ>The key words are "indubitably true". Johnson (and I for that matter)
> >believe that God COULD have worked "through a natural evolutionary
> >process" but he (and I) do not believe that He MUST have.
>
> and
>
> SJ>That is the main difference between Johnson's (and my)
> Theistic Realist
> >position and Glenn's Theistic Naturalist position."
>
> Exactly *how* has it been "refuted" and *who* was it that
> "refuted" it? Just
> your asserting it does not make it so!
>
> JR>For those not oblivious to finer points: no Christian in the
> discussion, so
> >far as I know anyway, believes that God -had- to use evolution.
>
> On the contrary, *the whole thrust* of Glenn's posts is that "God
> -had- to
> use evolution". He *automatically* assumes evolution and *never* even
> seriously considers supernatural creation as an option. What's
> more, Glenn
> attacks relentlessly and destructively any Christian apologist
> like Johnson
> or Ross who proposes *any* form of supernatural creation.