We agree on the need for evolution in the origin of man. we disagree on
the need for at least a historical creation/flood account.
At 11:48 AM 11/18/98 -0500, Rasmussen, Ryan J. wrote:
>Hi Glenn,
>
>I'm assuming that the creation account in Genesis is not literal. I'm
>assuming that mankind was created through the process of evolution and
>that this process had a predetermined outcome (was not completely random
>mutations of chance) that was to ultimately result in a being which God
>could commune with. I'm also assuming that at some point in history
>there would have been a being that was finally evolved enough for God to
>start this communion with. God had patiently and lovingly waited
>billions of years for this moment.
I agree with one exception, I think there is a need for a divine
intervention in the creation of man. Bible seems to indicate this (and I
know not too many people here would agree with that)
> Evidence that early man had religion of one type or another
>might be evidence that we have had this basic intelligence millions of
>years ago. Of course this would mean that Adam is extremely old which
>conflicts with the nice image of a modern looking Adam and Eve living in
>Eden. Things aren't always picture perfect I guess.
Mankind (hominids) were doing some very, very human things a long time ago.
Someone cared for a very, very sick lady 1.6 million years ago. She KNM
1808)had hypervitaminosis A which causes the muscles to rip away from the
bones. This is a very painful way to die. This lady had the disease a
long time because some of the tears had begun to heal. When someone has
this condition they can't move very well and would be an easy target for a
predator. Someone brought her water and kept the predators and vultures
away. That is human concern, not chimp treatment.
There had to have been a time when Adam's children lived
>with other beings that simply did not have the capacity to commune with
>the Creator. There are a couple of things that I can think of at this
>point:
>
>1) Adam lived so long ago that all of mankind as we know it today are
>from his line and the pre-Adamites are extinct. (Natural selection?
>Part of God's plan?)
>
>2) These other beings outside of Adam's line continued to evolve and
>obtain the basic intelligence required and result in the wide variety of
>ethnic people in the human race today.
>
If you exclude God being directly involved in the creation of man, then I
think you have hit all the possiblities. But if you have God involved and
move the time of Adam WAY back, there are no 'pre-Adamites'. The fossil men
become descendants of Adam. Why said Adam had to look like a modern man?
In fact, the article Jack Haas recommened to me about the debate on the
place of black's makes it clear that looks aand emotional reaction lead
many to reject a common ancestry with blacks.
"Naked racism was endemic in the age: even Lyell had balked at the thought
of black ancestors: 'wasn't it repugnant to 'nearly all men'? Surely to
teach it 'w'd. ensure the expusion of a Prof.'? Huxley proved him wrong,
but that did not stope the hate mail. Darwin himself was pelted by 'those
of us who respect our ancestors & repudiate...the contamination of Negro
Blood.'" Adrian Desmond's, Huxley: From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's
High Priest,
(Addison-Wesley, 1997), p. 320
Today we accept common descent with blacks but it is now those ugly
Neanderthals and H. erectus' we don't want in the family.
>Adam and Eve were not commissioned to be evangelists. They were to be
>"fruitful and multiply". Either way it appears that we are the end
>product that God has set up this vast universe of interdependent systems
>for. Whether we choose to or not... we all have the capacity to know
>Him.
Absolutely agree.
>One other thought comes to mind on a different topic in closing. If the
>universe began with the "Big Bang" and is continuing to expand, and
>stars have only a limited amount of fuel and grow farther and farther
>apart, doesn't it seem that this universe as we know it was destined to
>be "temporary" when it was created? (assuming natural laws remain and
>God does not intervene) If we lived eternally in a universe according
>to God's original plan (without sin), would the mechanics of the
>universe be the same? I guess what I am getting at is... when sin
>entered into mankind's lives (according to Genesis) was the universe
>already destined to be temporary? (assuming constants remain the same).
I think the laws of physics were identical before and after sin. God did
not create a perfect world. He pronounced it 'good'(towb) not
'perfect'(tamiym). Towb is the word that Lot used when he told the crowd
outside his house--'do what you think 'good' (towb) with my daughters.' I
don't think perfection was what Lot had in mind.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm