Deborah Haarsma | The President's Notebook

(system) #1
My eventual acceptance of evolution came from recognizing that there was no inherent conflict between science and theology.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

(George Brooks) #2

Randy Isaac concludes:

“In total, the clear and mounting evidence for evolution and the fundamental weaknesses of
counter arguments combined to make a compelling case for me. Interactions with Rick Potts
on human origins helped bring a focus on the issue of Adam and Eve. I do not have all the
answers and I continue to struggle with many aspects of science and faith. But the overall
clarity of the scientific method, the soundness of the scientific consensus on evolution
and the poor reasoning of the alternative views have convinced me.”

That last phrase is particularly important!: “. . . and the poor reasoning of the alternative
views have convinced me.”

I’d like to remind the Atheist Evolutionists who sometimes post on these pages that the task
for BioLogos is not to prove no God ever laid a finger on the evolution of humanity.

Indeed… we are here to demonstrate to Evangelicals how easy it is to fit a Christian
viewpoint on top of evolutionary science. Sometimes that means pointing out God’s
fingerprints might be all over the place!

Issues of Theodicy are not unique to Christians who believe Evolutionary science is
valid - - it’s a problem to be resolved in the minds and hearts of ALL Christians. So
if anyone stumbles across an Atheist asking questions about the origins of Evil, please
remind him of the universality of the issue and get him back on the task at hand!


George Brooks

(Dcscccc) #3

probability arguments are not compelling? the entire science method base on probability.

(system) #4

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.