Area: Evolution Msg: #316 Date: 102094 10:18 (Public) To: Barbara Davidson Subject: Help B

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Area: Evolution Msg: #316 Date: 10-20-94 10:18 (Public) From: Jeff Doles To: Barbara Davidson Subject: Help ------------------------------------------------------------------- BD>Hi. I need some help understanding evolution vs. creation. I am a BD>Christian who believes in Creation. I have read a little on the BD>subject, but not much. At the moment I am reading Darwin on Trial, BD>and what Phillip E. Johnson has to say in this book makes sense. Any BD>comments would be appreciated. Barbara. Welcome, Barbara. I am a Christian, also (flavor -- evangelical). I am a Creationist in the sense that I believe that God is ultimately the Creator of "life, the universe and everything." But I am not a young earth Creationist (YEC) or a Scientific Creationist (SciCre). I believe that it is quite possible that God used evolution as one of His creative mechanisms. I find nothing in the Bible that precludes this possibility. The Theory of Evolution (TOE) -does- contradict a very literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation, but I think, as Christians, we need to be careful not to confuse our -interpretation- of the Bible with the Bible itself. The Bible may be inerrant, but our interpretations may be quite fallible. If you would like to discuss the biblical aspects of this question, just drop me a post over on Fidonet Open Bible. May I recommend a couple of books to you? -Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism- by Howard J. Van Til, Davis A. Young and Clarence Menninga (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988) -The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation- by Howard J. Van Til (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986?) Van Til, Young and Menninga are all Christians and professors at Calvin College. Van Til is professor of physics and the other two are professors of geology. -Darwin's Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought- by David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987). CBD (Christian Book Distributors) has been having a closeout on these -- I got my copy for two bucks. I think you will be surprised to see how evangelical and conservative theologians of the late 19th and early 20th century responded to Darwin's theory. -The Creationists- by Ronald Numbers (1993?). Gives a good historical account of the Creation/Evolution debate. Henry Morris gives a good recommendation on the jacket blurb. -Creation and Time- by Hugh Ross (1993) gives some biblical and scientific arguments for an ancient earth. This echo (Fidonet Evolution) is pretty decently run. Except for a couple of bad eggs, courtesy begets courtesy here. Open, honest questions generally get open, honest questions. Peace be with you. * OLX 2.1 TD * Seek justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God. --- WM v2.03/92-0261 * Origin: Electro-Skeptic BBS Tampa FL 14.4 813-831-5706 (1:377/33) ΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝΝ Area: Evolution Msg: #317 Date: 10-20-94 16:17 (Public) From: Jeff Doles To: All Subject: Assumptions °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° Just finished reading an article by Phillip E. Johnson, "Shouting 'Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin," in the latest issue of -Christianity Today- (Oct 24, 1994) pp 22-26. Toward the end of the article Johnson stated, "What [Darwinian scientists] have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible -- or least implausible -- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator." Question: Does evolution science assume that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation? Does it assume that nothing else exists? Johnson follows up with: "The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic." Question: Is the assumption of evolution science "profoundly atheistic?" Earlier in the article, Johnson cited Michael Ruse's talk at the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science as an example that will "indicate the problems that are ahead for Darwinists as the debate continues and expands." Johnson said, "The talk was supposed to be an attack, but Ruse actually conceded the main point at issue between us. Darwinism is founded upon a naturalistic picture of reality, he conceded, and this assumption needs to be defended honestly rather than concealed." Does anybody have a transcript of this talk? Is this an accurate assessment? Johnson comments, "This concession will be fatal if the evolutionary scientists agree to make it, because the Darwinian version of evolution has hitherto been presented to the public as value-free fact." Peace to all. * OLX 2.1 TD * Elvis has left the building. --- WM v2.03/92-0261 * Origin: Electro-Skeptic BBS Tampa FL 14.4 813-831-5706 (1:377/33)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank