RE: Adam from Dust

From: Shuan Rose (shuanr@boo.net)
Date: Mon Jul 22 2002 - 11:52:58 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "Re: acronyms"

            Actually, there are even more problems than that with the
    whole issue of
    soul infusion, but let it pass. the biggest problem with classic concept of
    an immortal soul maybe that it is not biblical, as been discussed. Our hope
    is not the survival of a disembodied soul, but the resurrection of the body.
    God is going to somehow reconstitute the whole person at the end of days,
    and thereafter we will live with the Lord. Hallelujah!

    -----Original Message-----
    From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
    Behalf Of J Burgeson
    Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 11:30 AM
    To: dickfischer@earthlink.net; asa@calvin.edu
    Subject: RE: Adam from Dust

    Dick Fischer wrote (rhetorically, I do not disagree with his post):

    "Which of those billions of sperm cells come with souls? Which of the
    mother's eggs have souls attached? If at conception the beginning
    embryo doesn't have its soul yet, when does it get one? I don't
    presume to know the answer, ...."

    As with many science/religious questions, perhaps science cannot answer
    this, but it can provide evidence which suggests limits.

    Those who claim the soul is "infused by God" at the "moment of conception
    have at least three scientific facts to explain:

    1. The "moment of conception" is not an event, but a process, taking (I am
    told) upwards of an hour to complete.

    The only response to this is "Well, there must be some point of time in
    there somewhere; it is probably not scientifically measurable."

    I think this would be an adaquate (metaphysical of course) answer, but for
    the next two facts.

    2. For about two weeks after conception completes, there is a possibility of
    "twinning," where the fertilized entity splits into two separate persons,
    producing "identical" twins. Was a second soul created?

    A possible response to this is "Well, there were two souls there all along."

    This seems to me to be stretching a bit, but I suppose one could hold this
    (metaphysical) position honestly and rationally. But the third fact seems to
    be a trump:

    3. Following the twinning process, the two separate entities sometimes fuse
    back into one. Did the second soul die?

    I suppose one could claim the second soul simply died. But by this time even
    a metaphysical explanation seems to wear pretty thin.

    It is fair, however, for one to ask the question "When, then, DOES the soul
    appear?" And it seems clear that, assuming a separate soul exists, and being
    a dualist, I hold that position, that the only honest answer is "I don't
    know." So I agree with Dick.

    Even with this answer, however, it is OK to speculate, realizing that this
    is metaphysics, not science. One speculation is that the infusion of a soul
    is a PROCESS, and takes place over the many months of gestation, and,
    perhaps, is not complete until sometime in childhood. I don't like this
    speculation; it inplies that there are such things as either "partial souls"
    or "incomplete souls."

    The only alternative speculation seems to be that the soul is infused
    sometime during the gestation cycle. This explanation is the most satisfying
    to me, personally.

    Dick, in replying to Glenn, also says:

    "You and Hugh Ross have pinned the evidence of soul on certain behavior
    patterns such as building altars. By your own standards of evidence animals
    don't do that."

    The brutal fact is that certain animals, at certain times and in certain
    places exhibit behaviours that parallel much of Glenn's evidences. See the
    book WHEN ELEPHANTS WEEP, for instance. They exhibit altruism (even
    cross-species), enjoy art and beauty, fall in love, and much more. The two
    strongest pieces of evidence Glenn has are altar building and the use of
    fire for illumination in otherwise inaccessuble caves. These two are strong
    enough evidence (for me) to make the judgement that the creatures of 4MY ago
    were as human as I am, and therefore Glenn's models have to be taken
    seriously by those holding to a factual Adam/Eve.

    Best

    JWB

    www.burgy.50megs.com

    _________________________________________________________________
    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 22 2002 - 12:28:05 EDT