> Fall of evolved man
>
> David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
> Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:27:47 -0400
>
> > How does an evolutionary development of man bring the Fall of Man into the
> >>picture?
> The only approach I know of that seems credibly orthodox in
> recognizing the significance of the Fall is to assume that Adam and Eve,
> physically produced by evolution (with or without miraculous intervention),
> were miraculously endowed with a spiritual nature. (Some on this list have
> suggested that the spiritual nature could have been "built into" the
> evolutionary process rather than being "inserted" once Adam appeared; I
> suspect distinguishing "when" God acted is very moot considering His
> relationship to time.) They were given a choice whether to obey or to
> disobey God and chose to disobey.
> Many have tried to claim that our being a product of evolution
> means that we are not responsible for our actions and are not truly sinful.
> However, this is flawed on two counts. First, the logic is invalid-it's
> simply a disguised form of trying to claim that the physical process of
> evolution has a-theistic [deistic or atheistic] implications. The Bible
> says we have natural tendancies to do wrong- "I do this because it's my
> nature" is not a valid excuse to a Christian!
> Secondly, it is invariably in practice a hypocritical claim. If
> you were to hit someone who was endorsing this arguement, he would get mad
> and want justice, if not vengeance. He thinks you should be responsible
> for your actions!
>
> David Campbell