> LH>Obviously, there can be no "naturalistic" explanation of the Incarnation.
>
SJ> The simple fact is that there *are*, "by radical theologians like
> Tillich and
> Bultmann, and the so-called `Jesus School'" who consistently carry out Loren's
> canon of preferring a naturalistic explanation to everything (ie. methodological
> naturalism), to the Bible.
To call perferring-a-naturalistic-explanation-to-everything
"Loren's canon" is, plain and simple, bearing false witness.
I have made clear, in MANY posts, that I do NOT prefer a naturalistic
explanation to everything, and I do NOT think that methodological
naturalism is a necessary prerequisite to science or anything else.
> LH>I offered a few reasons why a Christian -- a Christian who firmly believes
> >in the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God) -- could also
> >believe that God accomplished one PARTICULAR thing, the formation of first
> >life, via design-for-self-assembly and governance of natural laws.
>
SJ> The real question is, if Loren is "a Christian who firmly believes
> in the Incarnation (and other miraculous acts of God)", why does he
> rule out apriori the possibility that God might have acted supernaturally
> in "the formation of first life"?
No, the real question is this: Even though I made it explicitly and
PAINFULLY clear in my earlier post (and in many previous posts) that I do
NOT rule out apriori the possibility that God might have acted
supernaturally in the formation of first life --- even though I made it
explicitly and painfully clear that I accept miraculous creation of first
life as a viable option --- why does Steve Jones claim that I said the
exact opposite?
Loren Haarsma