Jeff wrote,
> I got a call from my father, a Nazarene minister, the other night. One of
> the flock (a quiet agronimist) got pulled into a c/e discussion at work, got
> leveled by a stumper, and came to Dad wondering how to resolve the question.
>
> So, I am trying to pull together some resources for him on the topic of
> "original sin" and its effects on creation. Specifically these are in
> answer to Sure-Fire Evolutionist Stumper #371: Evolution can't possibly be
> true because the Bible teaches that no death existed before the Fall.
I'll just say the obvious.
1. The "no death before the Fall" problem arises only in the wake of the
unwarranted _assumption_ that Genesis 1-3 is a chronicle of historical
particulars. It is not. And those persons who believe that it is are not
likely to respond favorably to any argument that would give credibility to
the concept of biotic evolution.
2. The "no death before the Fall" problem places old-earth episodic
creationists in the same position as persons favoring the idea of a Creation
sufficiently gifted by its Creator with formational capabilities as to make
possible something as remarkable as biotic evolution. It's not an evolution
problem, but a chronology problem.
3. The age of the Earth and the age of the universe as a whole are now, I
would say, sufficiently well determined by the natural sciences as to
discredit any young earth belief. Once again, however, persons who choose to
interpret the biblical text in such a way as to require the recent creation
chronology are not likely to give any credibility to the chronology
determined scientifically--even when consistent results are achieved by
numerous independent means and by several of the natural sciences.
4. Although I have been immersed in the "creation/evolution debate" for
decades, I am still amazed at what some people (good & sincere people, for
the most part) choose to believe. The "folk-science" phenomenon is
astoundingly powerful!
Note: Folk-science is a set of beliefs about the world, beliefs whose
primary function is to provide comfort and reassurance that another set of
worldview beliefs, already in place, may be maintained in spite of
criticism. The "comfort and reassurance" function is so powerful that nearly
any amount of criticism from professional scientists will be shrugged off as
nothing more than the "rantings of the deluded."
Life is good, but some moments are exceedingly frustrating.
Cheers,
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 16 2001 - 19:41:35 EST