or ask me and I will tell you how to subscribe and get the e-mail directly.
Ross the only thing I will do is cut my original post (Which started our
exchange), which has already been posted to this list and can be found at
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199908/0024.html
Anyone who hasn't read it should do so at that address.
glenn
****
>Would you be able to post our interchange on death before sin on the
listserve
>you mentioned? I would be interested in hearing other reactions. Of
course you
>can have the last word.
>
>I am talking about the attached mini series (which I sent to my brother who
>teaches junior high science.)
>
>(I also send to my home computer -- no, I am not schizophrenic, although I
>probably do have multiple personalities.)
>
>
> Ross
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 08:25:26 -0500 (DST)
>From: Ross Olson <OLSONRS@A1.HealthPartners.Com>
>Subject: death
>To: mortongr <mortongr@flash.net>
>Message-id: <C423ZYAZDLBCW*/R=SNUFFY/R=A1/U=OLSONRS/@MHS>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
>Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:30:00 -0500 (DST)
>Posting-date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:30:00 -0500 (DST)
>Importance: normal
>A1-type: MAIL
>
> 8/10/99
>Glenn,
>
>Cell death is not the same as death of an organism. If you cannot see
that, I
>do not know how to communicate. The logical conclusion would be that shed
skin
>cells should be given a proper burial and sick lymphocytes need to be kept on
>life support pending a ruling by the local bioethics committee.
>
>But your analysis parallels the view of those who lack a Biblical perspective
>and conclude that all life is equal. They cannot see the logic of animal
>research for human benefit and interpret a high view of human life as
>"species-ism."
>
>But if you also think that random change automatically imparts more
information,
>and support that with mathematical formulations, and think that the origin
and
>improvement of life are built into the universe, then I will have to sadly
>conclude our discussion.
>
>There is a logic and a symmetry to your vision of reality and it serves your
>purpose of allowing the acceptance of whatever the secular scientific
community
>throws out at any given time. And, of course, you hopefully know that
"truth"
>tomorrow may not resemble "truth" today.
>
>But some things in God's economy are not really logical from a human
>perspective, like the Trinity. Not that we embrace illogic but rather
that if
>we try to put everything together in a way that we can totally understand, we
>will invariably have pieces left over. For example, those who resolve the
>Scriptural dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's free will by eliminating
one
>or the other.
>
>
>
> Ross
>Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 13:53:03 -0500 (DST)
>From: mortongr <mortongr@flash.net>
>Subject: Re: death
>In-reply-to: <C423ZYAZDLBCW*/R=SNUFFY/R=A1/U=OLSONRS/@MHS>
>To: Ross Olson <Ross.S.Olson@HealthPartners.Com>
>Message-id: <3.0.6.32.19990810185303.0086ddf0@pop.flash.net>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:02:00 -0500 (DST)
>Posting-date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 20:02:23 -0500 (DST)
>Importance: normal
>A1-type: MAIL
>
>At 08:25 AM 08/10/1999 -0500, Ross Olson wrote:
>> 8/10/99
>>Glenn,
>>
>>Cell death is not the same as death of an organism. If you cannot see
>that, I
>>do not know how to communicate. The logical conclusion would be that shed
>skin
>>cells should be given a proper burial and sick lymphocytes need to be
kept on
>>life support pending a ruling by the local bioethics committee.
>
>Ok so if all of Adam's heart cells die (which is just cellular death) then
>Adam lives with no problems correct? This is so patently false that it is
>ridiculous to conceive of Adam living with a dead heart. If you can't see
>that, I don't know how to communicate.
>
>>
>>But your analysis parallels the view of those who lack a Biblical
perspective
>>and conclude that all life is equal. They cannot see the logic of animal
>>research for human benefit and interpret a high view of human life as
>>"species-ism."
>
>No it doesn't parallel that view. The fact is, God created a cellular
>death mechanism, He created a cell that intentionally mutates itself when
>it is under environmental stress. Why did God, the one you say would not
>tolerate death and mutation, deal in death and mutation?
>
>>
>>But if you also think that random change automatically imparts more
>information,
>>and support that with mathematical formulations, and think that the origin
>and
>>improvement of life are built into the universe, then I will have to sadly
>>conclude our discussion.
>
>Conclude it if you want. But one question. Are you saying that God
>couldn't possibly do these things? ARe you saying that God is so inept
>that He can't create a universe that can run on its own? A universe that
>is so wobbly that He must constantly tinker with it in order to keep it
>running? Did God create a Model T universe? You must have a very low view
>of God's abilities.
>
>>
>>There is a logic and a symmetry to your vision of reality and it serves your
>>purpose of allowing the acceptance of whatever the secular scientific
>community
>>throws out at any given time. And, of course, you hopefully know that
>"truth"
>>tomorrow may not resemble "truth" today.
>
>I appreciate you complement about the logic and symmetry of my vision of
>reality. I want a vision of reality that makes the Bible true not one that
>I must disbelieve my eyes over every doctrine. To me, it seems very
>strange that all the evidence goes against the way you say God did it.
>Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, two young-earth creationists admit in a
>recent book:
>
>
>"As we shall argue later, recent creationism is an attempt to reinterpret
>the data, not to deny their existence or importance. As it is now
>interpreted, the data are mostly against us. Well and good. We take this
>seriously. Eventually failure to deal with that data in a recent
>creationist scientific theory would be sufficient reason to give up the
>project." Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, "Young Earth Creationism," in
>J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, editors, Three Views on Creation and
>Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p. 51
>
> "Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old
>cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a
>recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that
>most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns." Paul Nelson
>and John Mark Reynolds, "Young Earth Creationism," in J. P. Moreland and
>John Mark Reynolds, editors, Three Views on Creation and Evolution, (Grand
>Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p. 49
>
>
>
>>
>>But some things in God's economy are not really logical from a human
>>perspective, like the Trinity. Not that we embrace illogic but rather
>that if
>>we try to put everything together in a way that we can totally
understand, we
>>will invariably have pieces left over. For example, those who resolve the
>>Scriptural dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's free will by eliminating
>one
>>or the other.
>
>Unfortunately, I believe that Christianity has embraced illogic. Itis the
>illogic of "if it disagrees with my theology it must be wrong".
>
>
>Your friend,
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:46:52 -0500 (DST)
>From: Ross Olson <OLSONRS@A1.HealthPartners.Com>
>Subject: death
>To: mortongr <mortongr@flash.net>
>Message-id: <C590ZYBAE1XU5*/R=SNUFFY/R=A1/U=OLSONRS/@MHS>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
>Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:50:00 -0500 (DST)
>Posting-date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:50:00 -0500 (DST)
>Importance: normal
>A1-type: MAIL
>
> 8/11/99
>
>Glenn,
>
>Your logic seems to me to slip cogs every now and then. You speak of cell
death
>in development -- such as death of nerve cells that do not find
connections --
>and then equate that with death of whole organs -- like the heart --
leading to
>the death of the organism.
>
>How do you apply the death principle to abortion? Is it God's will to
cull out
>defective babies? Is it good to hasten the demise of disabled or
terminally ill
>adults? Isn't this using human creativity to hasten evolution?
>
>
> Ross
>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 15:46:01 -0500 (DST)
>From: mortongr <mortongr@flash.net>
>Subject: Re: death
>In-reply-to: <C590ZYBAE1XU5*/R=SNUFFY/R=A1/U=OLSONRS/@MHS>
>To: Ross Olson <Ross.S.Olson@HealthPartners.Com>
>Message-id: <3.0.6.32.19990811204601.0086b300@pop.flash.net>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>Delivery-date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:30:00 -0500 (DST)
>Posting-date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:30:36 -0500 (DST)
>Importance: normal
>A1-type: MAIL
>
>At 08:46 AM 08/11/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>> 8/11/99
>>
>>Glenn,
>>
>>Your logic seems to me to slip cogs every now and then. You speak of cell
>death
>>in development -- such as death of nerve cells that do not find
>connections --
>>and then equate that with death of whole organs -- like the heart --
>leading to
>>the death of the organism.
>
>My point is that if cells can die, then there is no reason that Adam's
>heart couldn't die onc cell at a time eventually leading to his death. It
>is only a matter of timing, not of possibility. Death is already in the
>world once you allow cellular death. That is a fact.
>>
>>How do you apply the death principle to abortion? Is it God's will to
>cull out
>>defective babies? Is it good to hasten the demise of disabled or
>terminally ill
>>adults? Isn't this using human creativity to hasten evolution?
>
>Talk about logic slips. What the connection is I am not sure. Of course
>it is not correct to abort babies. Neither is it correct to kill the
>disabled--I have a hearing disability. But that is not the same as having
>death in the world. Cellular death IS death. Organismal death is the
>logical result of cellular death. That is simple medical fact. Can you
>tell me how a person can die yet have none of his cells die? That is like
>Shylock's pound of flesh.
>
>glenn
>
>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
>
>Lots of information on creation/evolution
>Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:49:36 -0500 (DST)
>From: Ross Olson <OLSONRS@A1.HealthPartners.Com>
>Subject: death and evolution
>To: mortongr <mortongr@flash.net>
>Message-id: <C759ZYBBFOMU1*/R=SNUFFY/R=A1/U=OLSONRS/@MHS>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
>Delivery-date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:58:00 -0500 (DST)
>Posting-date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:58:00 -0500 (DST)
>Importance: normal
>A1-type: MAIL
>
> 8/12/99
>
>Glenn,
>
>The death of cells in development or in carrying out their function --
such as
>skin cells that are constantly shed -- is not qualitatively the same as a net
>loss of cells. If I sunburn, being of a pale heritage and unsuited for
exposure
>to solar radiation, I shed faster but do not invariably have a net loss of
skin
>leading to denudation and death. (The pigment deficit represents loss of
>information and the intensity of certain parts of the solar spectrum may
>represent deterioration of the original design.) Of course, I may damage
some
>of the epithelial or pigment cells which later causes them to lose control
and
>become malignant. But there is an essential difference between skin cells
>falling off one by one as they are replaced by the growing layer and heart
cells
>dieing off one by one leading to pump failure.
>
>Renewal of the body by replacement of components is like the difference
between
>an oil change and a blown engine -- yes, if the oil is not changed, the
engine
>will go. But I can picture a physical universe in which God allowed
dependence
>on maintenance to teach us discipline (with air and food to symbolize
prayer
>and His Word) and yet made it possible for the physical body, though
vulnerable,
>to continue undiminished for indeterminate time. God can create a perpetual
>motion machine if He wants. To quote a famous philosopher, "Are you
telling me
>God can't do that?"
>
>The connection between abortion/euthanasia and evolution is survival of the
>fittest. I asked about aborting defective babies. If they are allowed to
live,
>wouldn't that dilute the gene pool with abnormal/inferior genes? And even
if it
>is just that the mother doesn't want the child, perhaps that represents a
faulty
>gene for maternal bonding in her make-up that needs to be eliminated.
>
>And even though Alzheimers patients have already reproduced if they are going
>to, they are using up resources and habitat needed for the more fit. And
even
>if a bunch of normals are eliminated with the abnormal, that's the way
evolution
>allegedly worked in the geologic past with asteroid impacts destroying the
good
>the bad and the indifferent. And, supposedly evolution always geared up to
>fill the gaps with something even better.
>
>
> Ross
>
>
My reply to Ross which he just got tonight is:
At 09:49 AM 08/12/1999 -0500, Ross Olson wrote:
> 8/12/99
>
>Glenn,
>
>The death of cells in development or in carrying out their function --
such as
>skin cells that are constantly shed -- is not qualitatively the same as a net
>loss of cells. If I sunburn, being of a pale heritage and unsuited for
exposure
>to solar radiation, I shed faster but do not invariably have a net loss of
skin
>leading to denudation and death. (The pigment deficit represents loss of
>information and the intensity of certain parts of the solar spectrum may
>represent deterioration of the original design.) Of course, I may damage
some
>of the epithelial or pigment cells which later causes them to lose control
and
>become malignant. But there is an essential difference between skin cells
>falling off one by one as they are replaced by the growing layer and heart
cells
>dieing off one by one leading to pump failure.
Raises an interesting question. Could Adam and Eve be sunburned and thus
kill a few skin cells. Why were they killed? Because there was serious
damage to them, often to their genetic code. The damage to skin cells
today causes melanoma. Could Adam have gotten melanoma if he hadn't
sinned? Could he sunburn if he hadn't sinned.
>
>Renewal of the body by replacement of components is like the difference
between
>an oil change and a blown engine -- yes, if the oil is not changed, the
engine
>will go.
Not for long. My son ruined a car engine because he failed to take my
advice to change the oil! The car died.
But I can picture a physical universe in which God allowed dependence
>on maintenance to teach us discipline (with air and food to symbolize
prayer
>and His Word) and yet made it possible for the physical body, though
vulnerable,
>to continue undiminished for indeterminate time. God can create a perpetual
>motion machine if He wants. To quote a famous philosopher, "Are you
telling me
>God can't do that?"
No I am not telling you God can't do that. I am telling you that there is
no evidence (including Biblical evidence ) that he did that.
>
>The connection between abortion/euthanasia and evolution is survival of the
>fittest. I asked about aborting defective babies. If they are allowed to
live,
>wouldn't that dilute the gene pool with abnormal/inferior genes? And even
if it
>is just that the mother doesn't want the child, perhaps that represents a
faulty
>gene for maternal bonding in her make-up that needs to be eliminated.
>
>And even though Alzheimers patients have already reproduced if they are going
>to, they are using up resources and habitat needed for the more fit. And
even
>if a bunch of normals are eliminated with the abnormal, that's the way
evolution
>allegedly worked in the geologic past with asteroid impacts destroying the
good
>the bad and the indifferent. And, supposedly evolution always geared up to
>fill the gaps with something even better.
Look at evolution as God's means to create a biosphere that is
self-regulating. By the way, God created the mutator genes which most
cells have. And these are beneficial because they occasionally give rise
to a form that is immune to the latest antibiotic.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution