In spite of maintaining a normal rigorous routine (which includes walking on her treadmill most every day, carrying wash baskets up the basement steps, and much more), which the doctors have encouraged her to do, Mary continues to experience absolutely no symptoms whatsoever of her aortic valve stenosis. Until or unless this changes, the next step will be another echocardiogram on April 3. We’ll plan to update you shortly after we learn the results of that test. Meanwhile, thanks so much for your prayers on our behalf, and for your comments and encouragement. We always read and appreciate all of what you write, even if we don’t reply. At the very least, it seems that God has afforded us additional time to adjust to the idea of what’s probably ahead, and to make necessary arrangements.
Generally speaking, mainstream science today endorses a version of Darwinian evolution which proposes that humans are the unanticipated result of wholly natural random forces at work over long ages. But because the Bible makes it clear that a sovereign infinite personal God fully intended from before time that humans would exist, Christians who align with modern science have to somehow involve God in their explanation of human origins. That gets tricky. So theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists often avoid taking any explicit position of just how God was involved. Dr. Francis Collins and BioLogos claim that, while certain evolutionary mechanisms “could be” directed, once God created matter and evolution took over, no further divine intervention “was required.” Well then, which is it — directed or not directed?
In an introduction to a formidable exhaustive new critique of theistic evolution, Dr. Stephen Meyer points out that attempts to accommodate both possibilities can lead to a logical contradiction:
“ . . . if the theistic evolutionist means to affirm the standard neo-Darwinian view of the natural selection/mutation mechanism as an undirected process while simultaneously affirming that God is still causally responsible for the origin of new forms of life, then the theistic evolutionist implies that God somehow guided or directed an unguided and undirected process. Logically, no intelligent being—not even God—can direct an undirected process. As soon as he directs it, the ‘undirected’ process would no longer be undirected.”
This brief commentary is part of the result of my March 2018 review of THEISTIC EVOLUTION: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique, © 2017 Crossway. This reference incorporates articles by over 20 contributors, including Stephen Meyer, Wayne Grudem, Paul Nelson, and J. P. Moreland. It’s a real tome — over 1,000 pages — and can be rather academic at times. But it’s a work that will hopefully serve the worthwhile purpose of demonstrating that Christians do not need to, and should not, “yield to contemporary evolutionary theory.” — Daryl E. Witmer, Executive Director, AIIA Institute.
Welcome to our new blog! I really hope that you’ll “follow” along by subscribing with your email address at right. Or bookmark this page and check in often.
The pace of life slows during the winter months here in north central Maine. So I try to catch up on my backlog of unread books.
I just finished reading Humble Apologetics by John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Here’s a notable excerpt: “The heart of the Christian religion is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and it is this to which [Christian] apologists hope to point their neighbors.”
That’s certainly a major purpose in my life. So it will be a major purpose of this blog.
I also intend to keep you up-to-date between bimonthly issues of our thoughtletter. A lot can happen in two months.
Some blogs will be brief and others longer. The blogs will be posted on no regular basis. I’ll write when I have something to say, not just because of some arbitrary deadline.
As long as it works, we’ll allow response (below). So drop us a comment if you choose.
God’s best to you until next time.
Daryl E Witmer