Ancient Hebrew Poetry

Darwin and God: a response to Fabricius (4)

Remark on Thesis #9. A brilliant thesis. At the same time, scientists of various disciplines will nonetheless continue to offer pseudo-teleologies. How couldn’t they, since theology is no longer accepted as the queen of the sciences? A pseudo-theology will perforce be set up in its place. On the other hand, the facts of general revelation and special revelation and the relationship between the two stand, with unresolved tensions. The temptation to eliminate all claims of particular or general revelation from consideration is a deplorable and counter-productive shortcut.

Darwin and God: a response to Fabricius (3)

Remark on Thesis #6. Barth is unfair to and dismissive of biology. The biblical creation story is like an organ playing the music of Bach or Buxtehude. But biology in its own way is an organ of the music of the spheres. Dooyeweerd is better than Barth on this point (and not only on this point). If theology is a world unto itself rather than the queen of the sciences – Aquinas is better than Barth on this score - the loss of understanding is across the board, theology and biology included.

Darwin and God: a response to Fabricius (2)

Remark on Thesis #3. Wow, that is impossible to improve on.

Darwin and God: a response to Fabricius (1)

Over at Faith and Theology, Kim Fabricius has proven once again that the best online bloggers write every bit as well as columnists do in dead-tree journals of yore and now. His Ten Propositions on Darwin and Deity are informed, controversial, and designed for discussion. Here is a response.