R. Albert Mohler is classy citizen, a sharp academician, and a fine Media representative for the Christian faith. Thanks for posting the link to his response.
This is a strong response by Dr Mohler; better than his original lecture, in my opinion. But when he says that "the structure and implications of his theory of natural selection" are to blame, not Darwin the man, for evolution's incompatibility with Christianity, I wonder if he is aware (a) that there can be common descent of all living things via evolution without natural selection or (b) that young Earth creationists employ theories of natural selection all the time to explain how the original "kinds" gave rise to modern "species" (baraminology).
To make my point clear: I don't think it is "the structure and implications of [Darwin's] theory of natural selection" that Mohler really objects to.
R. Albert Mohler is classy citizen, a sharp academician, and a fine Media representative for the Christian faith. Thanks for posting the link to his response.
ReplyDeleteI love Albert Mohler!
ReplyDeleteNot only is he against evolution, he's also a signer and supporter of the Manhattan Declaration!
Really TUAD? Is that necessary?
ReplyDeleteSome people might not be aware of it.
ReplyDeleteTRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete"I love Albert Mohler! Not only is he against evolution, he's also a signer and supporter of the Manhattan Declaration!"
Which just goes to show that even great men have their blind spots.
This is a strong response by Dr Mohler; better than his original lecture, in my opinion. But when he says that "the structure and implications of his theory of natural selection" are to blame, not Darwin the man, for evolution's incompatibility with Christianity, I wonder if he is aware (a) that there can be common descent of all living things via evolution without natural selection or (b) that young Earth creationists employ theories of natural selection all the time to explain how the original "kinds" gave rise to modern "species" (baraminology).
ReplyDeleteTo make my point clear: I don't think it is "the structure and implications of [Darwin's] theory of natural selection" that Mohler really objects to.
But TUAD doesn't have any blind spots to speak of or maybe I am wrong? ah blinded by the light of TUAD?
ReplyDelete