| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
23rd May 2006, 05:18 AM
|  | Senior Member
31     
 | | Join Date: 13th April 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 558
Blessings: 76,596
Reps: 3,394 (power: 9) | | | If evolution is not valid theology, someone should tell the theologians
Here is a list of conservative, evangelical, orthodox, Bible-believing Christian theologians, preachers, evangelists and writers who accept an Old Earth / evolutionary theory.
Henri Blocher
Chuck Colson
Dr. William Lane Craig
C.S. Lewis (author of the Narnia chronicles)
J. I. Packer (author of Knowing God)
Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Christ)
B.B. Warfield
Gordon Wenham
John Stott (author of The Cross of Christ)
Meredith G. Kline
[and there are many others...]
So, ladies and gentlemen, are they all wrong? Are they all leading the church into error? |
23rd May 2006, 05:30 AM
|  | Veteran
77   
| | Join Date: 3rd July 2004 Location: NW England, UK
Posts: 1,226
Blessings: 94,076
Reps: 3,117 (power: 12) | | | That's great! Only trouble is, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not theology.
The Bible is an account of the revelation of God to his people. Evolution belongs to biological science.
No wonder most, if not all, great Christians believe in the science of evolution, geology, and all the rest of the earth and biological sciences. And most lesser Christians, too, come to that!
The Bible is not, and never will be, a scientific treatise.
When a YEC builds a rocket and takes man to the moon, based solely on principles and instructions taken from the Bible, then I might, just possibly, believe something of what they say! |
23rd May 2006, 07:31 AM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 22nd December 2005
Posts: 7,349
Blessings: 42,919
Reps: 1,170,005,508,018,711 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by jereth Lee Strobel (author of The Case for Christ)
Strobel? Are you sure?
After reading The Case for a Creator, I thought Strobel demonstrated as much understanding of evolution as a Texas truck-stop diner demonstrates appreciation for nouveau cuisine.
But perhaps he's changed since publishing that book? |
23rd May 2006, 01:24 PM
|  | Veteran
 
| | Join Date: 1st November 2005 Location: Southern Copenhagen
Posts: 1,309
Blessings: 90,521 My Mood 
Reps: 962,953,261,475 (power: 962,953,269) | | Originally Posted by Maccie That's great! Only trouble is, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, not theology.
True, science and theology is an unstable mixture - don't rely on, how it'll behave under varying pressure and temperature! Originally Posted by Maccie When a YEC builds a rocket and takes man to the moon, based solely on principles and instructions taken from the Bible, then I might, just possibly, believe something of what they say!  Yeah, that'll be the day ...
- FreezBee
__________________ Like icy shards from the broken mirror within Melting in the tears from the stars in your eyes Shining still fainter, still brighter through the darkness The love between you and me, a trace of dawn
|
24th May 2006, 09:06 AM
| | Senior Member
31
| | Join Date: 13th April 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 558
Blessings: 76,596
Reps: 3,394 (power: 9) | | Originally Posted by chaoschristian Strobel? Are you sure?
I got that one from Reasons to Believe. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo....shtml#strobel
Apparently these are Strobel quotes: Thanks to scientific discoveries of the last fifty years, the ancient kalam cosmological argument has taken on a powerful and persuasive new force. As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause . Even renowned skeptic David Hume didn't deny this first premise. In fact, atheist Quentin Smith's contention that "we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" seems intuitively absurd.
The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls-eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. One expert said there are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.
It's not overtly evolutionary, but evolutionary nonetheless. |
24th May 2006, 09:08 AM
| | Senior Member
31
| | Join Date: 13th April 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 558
Blessings: 76,596
Reps: 3,394 (power: 9) | | Originally Posted by Maccie No wonder most, if not all, great Christians believe in the science of evolution, geology, and all the rest of the earth and biological sciences. And most lesser Christians, too, come to that!
Amen, and praise the Lord! |
24th May 2006, 10:10 AM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 1st November 2005 Location: Southern Copenhagen
Posts: 1,309
Blessings: 90,521 My Mood
Reps: 962,953,261,475 (power: 962,953,269) | | Originally Posted by jereth Thanks to scientific discoveries of the last fifty years, the ancient kalam cosmological argument has taken on a powerful and persuasive new force. As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause .
Oh dear - would somebody be so kind as to tell William Lane Craig about the theory of relativity? Causal relations are temporal relations, but there's no time without a space, so space is uncaused. Originally Posted by jereth Even renowned skeptic David Hume didn't deny this first premise.
But he denied that we could use it to prove anything about the creator, not even if there was one or many, and certainly nothing about the properties of the creator(s). Aristotle in his time operated with a "prime mover" who had started the whole spiel, but who then left the universe run its own business.
- FreezBee
__________________ Like icy shards from the broken mirror within Melting in the tears from the stars in your eyes Shining still fainter, still brighter through the darkness The love between you and me, a trace of dawn
|
24th May 2006, 11:40 AM
|  | you are not reading this.
24  
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,357 My Mood 
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Ack, the kalam cosmological argument is basically IDism on a cosmic scale. Lee Strobel wrote a book called The Case for Creation and I have not seen any sign that he's turned away from his creationist position, so I don't think it's right to put him in.
You can add Philip Yancey though, while he doesn't say much about the crevo debate AFAIK he did write a line something like this in Reaching For The Invisible God which sounds like he's no YECist: "Not too long ago literalists were telling us that according to the Bible, the earth could not be much older than 6,000 years." while talking of other old Christian ideas.
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
24th May 2006, 12:04 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 22nd December 2005
Posts: 7,349
Blessings: 42,919
Reps: 1,170,005,508,018,711 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by jereth I got that one from Reasons to Believe. http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo....shtml#strobel
Apparently these are Strobel quotes: Thanks to scientific discoveries of the last fifty years, the ancient kalam cosmological argument has taken on a powerful and persuasive new force. As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause . Even renowned skeptic David Hume didn't deny this first premise. In fact, atheist Quentin Smith's contention that "we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" seems intuitively absurd.
The cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls-eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth. One expert said there are more than thirty physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a universe that can sustain life.
It's not overtly evolutionary, but evolutionary nonetheless.
Strobel, in context, used that passage to support the idea that all of creation must be designed.
Check out http://www.leestrobel.com/ He provides his own refutation of 'Darwinism' right on the front page. |
24th May 2006, 12:08 PM
| | Contributor
| | Join Date: 22nd December 2005
Posts: 7,349
Blessings: 42,919
Reps: 1,170,005,508,018,711 (power: 0) | | | Oh and saying that Lee Strobel is a theologian is like saying Ronald McDonald is a four star chef.
Strobel is an author and a self-promoter of the same calibre and skill as Dan Brown. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
