On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:51:01 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>There is nothing special about man, except he is in the image of
>God. I believe that God carried out similar "forming from the dust of
>the ground" (Gen 2:7) for all the major groups.
BH>It seems to me that being made in the image of God makes _all_ the
>difference. Physically man bears considerable resemblance to other
>creatures -- either by design which directs an evolutionary process
>overseen by God, or by more direct design -- but what makes _all_ the
>difference is that God gave man His Spirit when He made man (Gen 2:7: Then
>the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
>nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being)
It says nothing about God's "Spirit". It simply says that God gave man
the "breath of life", which all animals have (Gn 6:17; 7:15,22).
BH>True, the
>other animals were formed from the dust of the ground. But the second part
>of the above verse, "and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and
>man became a living being" applies to _man_, not the animals.
The Bible actually says that *all* animals have God's "breath of
life", not only man.
BH>I believe it's quite significant that the Hebrew word used for
>breath here can also mean spirit.
I am not sure that this is true. But the real point is that in
Genesis both animals and man are depicted as having this same
"breath". The difference between man and animals is, according to
Genesis, solely that man in in the "image of God" (Gen 1:28; 5:1;
9:6).
>Earlier Stephen said the following
SJ>I believe you are inconsistent here Terry. If God can "tweak" human
>biological history, why not other species' biological history.
>
BH>Personally, I don't have a problem with God tweaking biological
>history --if indeed that is what He actually did. Whether he
>tweaked the genomes of creatures or tweaked other things at lower
>levels that braought about His desires, He was and is fully in
>control at all times.
Agreed.
TG>I am also very comfortable with your objection to the notion of
>"nature". This is exactly the point I try to make when I say that the
>distinction ought to be regular/irregular or ordinary/extraordinary
>rather than natural/supernatural. It seems to me that you objected
>to this line of thinking before. "Nature" is just as dependent on God
>as any supernatural act. The term itself connotes a notion of
>autonomy; that something acts according to its own "nature".
Agreed, but the distinction between God acting directly as a first
cause and indirectly through a secondary cause should be recognised
and preserved. Creation should not be confused with Providence.
BH>This is an aspect of YEC thinking that gives scientists
>considerable discomfort.
This is IMHO revealing. Why are "sceintists" who are Chrsitians
uncomfortable with God stepping in "to bring about something beyeond
the capabilities of nature"? Isn't this precisely because they are
too much committed to naturalism? It is one thing for a Christian to
use methodological naturalism as a tool in one's work, and another to
be uncomfortable with theism in one's personal life.
BH>YEC's give the impression that they believe
>in an autonomous nature that does its own thing except for what
>happens at discrete instances when God steps in to bring about
>something beyeond the capabilities of nature. Personally, I don't
>believe that _any_ of nature would function were it not for God's
>continuous oversight.
I am not a YEC, but I am not sure that is not a stereotype of YEC.
Even if YEC do overemphasise the transcendence of God in creation,
that might be a reaction to what they see as too much an emphasis
on the other side?
Stephen