Evolutionary theory is supposed to be a complete theory of the origin of man.
As a purely scientific theory, there is not need to invoke a Creator.
Accordingly, there is no way anyone can make any sense of created or evolved
in the image of God in the context of the theory. A Christian who believes in
both Christ and evolution can reconcile the two in his/her mind but that is
about it. It may take all sorts of intellectual contortions but one can do
that. Moorad
>===== Original Message From kbmill@ksu.edu (Keith B Miller) =====
>>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
>
>
>Below are some of my comments that I may have posted to this list before.
>I do think that this is at least one way to understand the Image of God in
>an evolutionary context.
>
>Our physical and genetic continuity with the rest of the
>creation in no way excludes an historical Adam. However, since there is a
>continuity of physical form from modern humans to our common ancestors with
>the other great apes, there are no physical criteria by which the appearance
of
>the "image of God" could be identified in the fossil record.
>
>With regard to the implications of human evolution for the "image of God" I
>will quote from an article that I wrote several years ago.
>
>"We are the image of God in creation - that is why the command against
>making graven images is so powerful. We stand in a unique position within
>creation - as God's representative, as His viceroy over the Earth. I
>believe that the basis for that unique position is our dual nature. We
>have at once a kinship with the rest of creation and with the creator.
>Genesis describes the origin of humankind in precisely the same manner as
>that of all other living things (Gen 2:7,9,19). The origin of our physical
>nature is not different from that of other creatures -- we are made of the
>same stuff. If God used and providentially controlled evolutionary
>mechanisms in the creation of plants and animals, I see no reason to reject
>an evolutionary origin for humankind. In fact, the testimony of both
>scripture and nature is that we share a oneness with the rest of creation.
>Our physical natures are inseparably connected to the rest of life on
>Earth."
>
>"An inseparable part of being created as images of God in the world is the
>authority delegated to us by God. We have been chosen out of creation as
>God's representatives, His stewards. God commissioned us to "Be fruitful
>and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish
>of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that
>moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Adam was placed in the garden "to
>work it and take care of it" (Genesis 2:15). Our ability to exercise this
>divine commission to rule and care for creation is, I believe, based on our
>dual nature. Our physical unity with the natural world is as vital to our
>appointed role as image bearers as is our spiritual apprehension of the
>divine." (Keith B. Miller, 1993, Theological implications of an evolving
>creation: Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, vol. 45, p.150-160)
>
>The issue of Paul's comparison of Christ (the second Adam) with the first
Adam
>is, I believe quite helpful in sorting through the issues. Sin and
>spiritual death "entered the world" through Adam, but life and
>righteousness through Jesus Christ. It seems that both Adam and Christ are
>being presented as respresentative heads of the human race. We bear the
>image of Christ in the same way that we formally bore the image of Adam.
>We are dealing here, I believe, not with physical realities but with with
>spiritual realities. Adam thus need not be the physical ancestor of all
>humans, anymore than Jesus is the physical ancestor of all those who
>believe in Him.
>
>How was God's "image" imparted to humanity? I think that there are a
>couple of options here. One common position is that God selected a
>particular individual into whom God imparted a spiritually conscious soul.
>A more monist (as opposed to dualist) view might be that God revealed
>himself to Adam thus bringing Adam into personal fellowship in a state of
>moral innocence. I am sure there are other approaches to this.
>
>Furthermore, as has been pointed out by George Murphy, the Image of God is
>revealed not in Adam but in Christ. We are to be conformed to His image --
>the image of one who sacrifically emptied himself and suffered for our
>sake.
>
>If Adam is not the genealogical ancestor of all humanity, then how can we
>understand the "image" to have been communicated to all humanity? Firstly,
>this is essentially the problem of the "pre-Adamites" which is hardly a
>consequence of an evolutionary view of human origins. The Biblical text
>itself raises these issues because a staightforward reading of the text
>implies that Adam and his immediate descendents lived in an already
>populated world (Gen, 4:13-26). Thus, these questions have to be answered
>regardless of whether an evolutionary origin is accepted.
>
>There are a number of issues here and I won't do justice to any of them.
>
>One consideration is that the origin of the "Image of God" which is
>associated with the creation of humankind in Genesis 1, is not the focus of
>the account of Adam in chapter 2 and following. The issue with Adam is not
>the origin of God-likeness but rather the origin of sin. In other words
>the two accounts are dealing with different issues. The representative
>headship of Adam has to do with sin and its consequence - spiritual death.
>
>I think that scripture allows us to view the "Image of God" as an act of
>grace poured out on God's chosen creatures when those creatures had in
>effect "come of age." Here the evolutionary origin of humanity provides
>some helpful metaphors. Here's one way to think about it : God
>providentially directed the evolutionary development of humans to the point
>at which they possessed the mental and emmotional capacity for conscious
>fellowship with Him. At that point, God revealed Himself and established a
>covenant relationship, making them divine representatives to the rest of
>creation.
>
>I believe that Adam could have been selected out from the rest of humanity
>for a special covenant relationship. This would be entirely consistent
>with the pattern of God's interaction with the human race revealed
>throughout scripture. God selects a particular individual through whom to
>accomplish His redemptive will. There is first Adam, then Noah, Abram,
>Joseph, Moses, and Jesus. God seems to repeatedly focus the entire future
>of His will for His chosen on the obedience of a single individual.
>
>How is the sin condition (original sin) passed on? This question is
>related to the question: How is Christ's righteousness imputed to us? - By
>grace through faith.
>There is some act of the will on my part involved. I must willingly accept
>that offer of grace. What if we make a parallel with the transmission of
>sin? When I am born I am innocent (I do not mean righteous). However, at
>the first opportunity I choose to be disobedient - I sin and come under the
>curse of Adam which is spiritual death. Thus, Adam's curse is imputed to
>me by my sharing in his sin, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to
>me by faith. "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
>and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
>sinned" (Rom 5:12). My reading is that there are none who are without sin
>except Christ, thus there are none who are morally righteous yet still
>condemned by Adam's sin. We are condemned because we sin. Therefore I do
>not understand that sin itself is something that is passed on thru direct
>descent.
>
>The question then is, why do we all sin? This is where my views get even
>more speculative. It has been suggested by some that our physical desires
>and drives, which were part of God's good creation enabling us to survive
>and flourish as a species, became aspects of our humanity that God called
>us to overcome as His image bearers. In other words, God desires that His
>character be developed in us through our encounter with and overcoming of
>temptation and trial (Gen 2:15-17; Gen 4:6-7). And He has not left us in
>that process without providing us with His gracious power - if we choose to
>accept it. This provides, I believe, a useful basis for working out a
>theodicy of pain and suffering. I have found the book "Evil and the God of
>Love" by John Hick to be very helpful to me in thinking through theodicy
>issues.
>
>
>Keith
>
>
>
>Keith B. Miller
>Department of Geology
>Kansas State University
>Manhattan, KS 66506
>kbmill@ksu.edu
>http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 20:26:39 EDT