Dick Fischer wrote (Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:23:49 -0500):
>
> Jim Hoffman found Edward Max's updated (March 19, 2002) article,
> "Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics."
>
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
>
> This article contains an excellent explanation of DNA. For those
> whose body of knowledge may be "genetically challenged," this is about
> as easy to understand as it gets. Plus, the argument is compeling
> that copying errors in our DNA provide genetic markers by which we can
> be assured we are connected to the phyletic tree of life. Dr. Max
> does give sort of a disclaimer which I found interesting:
> [skip]
>
> If we accept that humans are related by common ancestry to higher
> primates, and indeed lower primates, old-world monkeys, etc., as we
> journey back in geological time, this effectively rules out two of the
> methods of apology that have proliferated in the Christian community -
> young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism - also called
> "progressive creation." The sooner we move beyond these stumbling
> stones, and rule out these fatally flawed methods of apology, the
> better in my estimation.
>
> The group of Christians who recognize mutual shared common ancestry,
> can be further divided into two groups. The big group (liberals)
> regard the first eleven chapters of Genesis as allegory, poetry,
> tradition, mythology, fiction, or some category that will allow the
> narrative to be "true" (or at least relevant) theologically, but
> discounted as having historical value.
>
> The smaller group (tiny is a better word), is stuck with having to
> make sense of it all. That is: recognizing the connectedness of
> biological life including humans, and recognizing a historical
> Genesis. This group must acknowledge the historicity of Adam, Noah
> and the intervening patriarchs, and place them in a historical
> setting. To the best of my knowledge, there are only two
> possibilities. Adam either started the human race some 4 - 6 million
> years ago, and thus is our ultimate ancestor, or Adam was inserted
> into the human race much later, about 7,000 years ago, for example.
>
> If Adam was actually created, however, out of the dust of the earth,
> and had no biological parents, then a late date for Adam is the only
> possibility. We cannot all be connected on the biological tree of
> life, and also be descended from someone who was specially created.
> It is either one or the other. But even if Adam had natural parents,
> he had to live sometime, somewhere. For those of you who remember,
> that was the thrust of the articles published in PSCF about eight
> years ago titled, "In Search of the Historical Adam."
>
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-93Fisher.html#Part%201
>
> http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF3-94Fisher.html#Part%202
>
> In short, if Darwin and Moses both got their facts right (Well, Darwin
> made at least a couple of mistakes.), then the method of apology I
> have advocated the last six years on this forum should at least vie
> for consideration on the grand stage of Christian apologetics. And
> that is: a historical Adam who was inserted into the human race to
> bring us into accountability. (Okay, he failed.) A toehold could
> become a foothold, and eventually, with a little publicity, this
> method of apology could become a unifying force for liberals and
> conservatives. (What a Pollyanna I am!)
>
> Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
> "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
Dick,
Thank you for this excellent piece of stocktaking!
Let me just add a few points in confirmation.
Claeys, K. (1979), "Die Bibel bestätigt das Weltbild der
Naturwissenschaft" (Stein am Rhein, Switzerland: Christiana) proposed
that
(1) a reading of Genesis which considers it as divinely inspired in all
its details is consistent with what is known from science;
(2) the Hebrew text clearly indicates evolution as an essential one of
the Creator's instruments;
(3) Gen. 2:4 ff is a continuation of Gen. 1:1 - 2:4 (not a double or
"second creation story");
(4) humans descended from animals;
(5) in Gen. 1:27, the creation of the first humans in the image of God
is in view - it does not talk of Adam and Eve;
(6) Gen. 2:7 does not talk of creation - Adam was not the first human
being;
(7) there were therefore human preadamites before Adam, from whom Adam
descended.
Claeys died in 1986.
In "How has Life and its Diversity been Produced?", PSCF 44/2 (June
1992), 80-94, I wrote: "As no other scientific hypothesis has been
formulated, there is, at present, no alternative to evolution as God's
creation method. And evolution is even a very attractive option for
Christians who believe in the full inspiration of Scripture! There seems
to be an inner congruence between developmental processes in nature and
the way God deals with His creation according to Scripture." The whole
text can also be found on the ASA website:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Rust.html
In "Genesis Reconsidered", PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999), 231-243, Armin Held
and I elaborated, in detail, a concordant interpretation of Gen. 1:1 -
2:7 based on these ideas. The text can also be found on the ASA website:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html
Of course, it was attacked, both in PSCF and on this list, by those in
what you call the "big group". Nevertheless, I am still convinced our
concordant interpretation is at least as valid, theologically,
scientifically and philosophically, as the
ancient-near-eastern-worldview interpretation (or rather dismissal) of
this text involving the feeble excuse of divine accommodation to human
errors (mistaken for kenosis).
In "Creative Providence in Biology", PSCF 53/3 (Sep. 2001), 179-183, I
presented a criticism of the concept of "creation's functional
integrity". The text can also be found on the ASA website:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Ruest.html plus
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01RustFig1.jpg or
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Ruest.pdf
I showed that the science-concordant view of Gen. 1-2 does not
misconstrue the Bible as a "science textbook", and that it is neither a
"god-of-the-gaps" view, nor does it require "coercive" interventions by
God. Instead, it provides a most natural and consistent integration of
belief in a free, all-powerful, all-present, all-loving Creator with a
belief in human free will (as far as the fundamental faith decision is
concerned). Furthermore, it suggests a solution to the scientific
conundrum of the origin of information in biological systems which is so
persistently ignored by both atheists and "big group" Christians.
I think it is very important to seriously discuss our "smaller group"
interpretations as a valid alternative - which has the advantage of
neither putting off not-yet-christian scientists open for the christian
faith, nor antagonizing a very large group of evangelical believers, nor
providing a "backlash" of producing more YECs.
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 10:20:34 EST
