Image of God reply

Ranald Macaulay  |  Your Views
Date posted:  1 Dec 2014
Share Add       

Dear Sir,

We are glad that Bob Alloway (Nov en) seems to agree with our main point (Oct en) that the image of God in man has to do with our intrinsic nature. He says: ‘… theistic evo-lutionists would agree that (Adam and Eve) were designed – and would say, ‘[human beings] didn’t just evolve by chance’.

What needs to be emphasised, however, is how far Alloway’s views differ from the now typical version of ‘mainline’ theistic evolu-tionists like Francis Collins. In his The Language of God, for example, Collins says ‘… once evolution got under way, no supernatural intervention was required.’ (p.200) He also discourages any ‘serious consideration (being) given to the Intelligent Design perspective’ (p.202) and carefully avoids even the idea of design because, as he says, ‘… it seems to be another ‘God of the Gaps’ theory imposing the presence of the divine where none is needed or desired.’ And ‘BioLogos (TE) is not intended as a scientific theory’.

Share
< Previous article| Your Views| Next article >
Read more articles by Ranald Macaulay >>
Features
Darwin undeniably discredited

Darwin undeniably discredited

Ranald Macaulay introduces us to a very significant book My admittedly dramatic title is deliberate.

Letter

Lausanne and true truth

Date posted: 1 May 2016

Dear en, I was thankful for Chris Wright’s gentle corrective in the April edition. I should have expressed more …

Need to advertise?

We can help you reach Christians across the country.

Find out more

Looking for a job?

Browse all our current job adverts

Search