In what way is your statement "there is no way one can make sense of man being
created in the image of God in the context of any scientific theory" different to
the satement "there is no way one can make sense of A man being created in the
image of God in the context of any scientific theory"? In one you have the image
of God appearing in a historical context, the other is the appearance of God in
the context of specific individuals. If we can recognise the image of God in each
of us, even though there is good scientific evidence on how people are conceived
and develop (an entirely natural-seeing process), why should there be any problem
with evolutionary processes. Conversely, if evolutionary processes are fatal to
the image of God in the human race as a while, why not the whole process of
conception and fetal development be fatal to the image of God in the individual?
In terms of being laughed at by committed evolutions, I assume you mean people
such as Dawkins, Provine et al. To such folk any theology is laughable so we
should never let our theology be determined by them.
GB
Jon
"Moorad Alexanian" wrote:
> X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00002795
> Sender: asa-owner@udomo5.calvin.edu
> Precedence: bulk
>
> It seems to me there is no way one can make sense of man being created in the
> image of God in the context of any scientific theory. Accordingly, such a
> concept cannot exist in any evolutionary concept of the origin of man. One can
> develop a hybrid theory to salvage the Christian faith but it is laughable by
> committed evolutionists. The same is true of the notion of the Fall of Man.
> Any explanation is as ad hoc as believing Genesis literally. Moorad
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 29 2001 - 23:19:40 EDT