"In his opinion on evolution, Warren displays his own considerable scientific illiteracy."
… on this one. I don’t often get to say that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
We must distinguish between theories of science and proven facts of science. It seems quite accurate to say that we live in an enormous universe, with vast light years in its expanse, and that it seems to be expanding at an increasing rate. Those observations do not tell us how it began, only what seems to be happening at present. Only God was present at the beginning, and He has told us what happened. Great scientists of previous generations sought to understand how God had done His work. In our day, scientific education leaves no room for God’s supernatural intervention.
There is conflict between secular theories of science and sound Biblical hermeneutics, but there is no conflict between honest investigation of our universe within the context of God the Creator.
People’s resons for accepting evolution are more philosophical than religious. Sir Bertrand Russell said he accepted evolution because accepting creation would imply a God to Whom he was accountable, and he was philosophically opposed to that view. I appreciate his honesty, but he was wrong, because there isi a God to Whom I am accountable.
In Psalm 8, David asked, “What is man ?” That is a fundamental philosophical, scientific, and theological question. If I am a highly developed animal, then I have little basis for true morality and ethics. If I am created in the image and likeness of God, then there is a theological and philosophical basis for sound ethics and morality.
Like Aaron, I would be with Warren on this issue. It may be that the press either did not give him time for explanation, or chose not to give his response.
There is conflict between secular theories of science and sound Biblical hermeneutics, but there is no conflict between honest investigation of our universe within the context of God the Creator.
People’s resons for accepting evolution are more philosophical than religious. Sir Bertrand Russell said he accepted evolution because accepting creation would imply a God to Whom he was accountable, and he was philosophically opposed to that view. I appreciate his honesty, but he was wrong, because there isi a God to Whom I am accountable.
In Psalm 8, David asked, “What is man ?” That is a fundamental philosophical, scientific, and theological question. If I am a highly developed animal, then I have little basis for true morality and ethics. If I am created in the image and likeness of God, then there is a theological and philosophical basis for sound ethics and morality.
Like Aaron, I would be with Warren on this issue. It may be that the press either did not give him time for explanation, or chose not to give his response.
Dick Dayton
The Religion Dispatch writer confuses “illiteracy” with “having a different opinion.” The former has to do with being unaware of information. The latter is a different evaluation of the information. Of course, it’s possible to have an uninformed opinion, but to assume that an opinion must be ignorant because it differs from your own is pretty sophomoric.
(Just finally got around to watching Ben Stein’s film Expelled… quite fascinating.)
[amazon B001BYLFFS thumbnail]
(Just finally got around to watching Ben Stein’s film Expelled… quite fascinating.)
[amazon B001BYLFFS thumbnail]
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion