Jim,
My view starts with God using nonliving matter as you and Hayward seem to
require. As I mentioned, I have suggested that Adam might have been the
victim of a mutation, a chromosomal fusion (apes have 48 chromosomes we have
46), and he didn't survive. God then took him, fixed him up and created a
man. This accomplishes numerous things.
The Biblical data says that
1. Adam was created by an act of God.
2. Did not originally have a mate
3. Was created from inanimate matter
These are the items I do not feel my fellow Theistic evolutionists take
seriously enough.
But the scientific data says,
1. We have identical pseudogenes on man, chimp, gorilla and gibbon. An
analogy for the pseudo genes is for you and I being asked to type the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire with the instruction that at some time
we are to cease typing, go to our respective libraries, choose a book at
random, open it at random and type in the first paragraph we see, and then
finish typing the Decline and Fall. If when our two works are compared, we
find that we BOTH have typed the 415th paragraph of Thornton, Misener and
Wheeler's _Gravitation_ no one on earth would believe that you and I had not
cheated and conspired to accomplish that feat.
2. The chromosomal banding on man and chimp are quite similar (See J.J.
Yunis and O. Prakash, "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy",
Science 215, p. 1525-1530 for the banding similarities between man, chimp,
gorilla and orangutan.) This seems to support a close connection between
3. The DNA of Chimp and man is 98% similar.
These are the facts which in my opinion those, who like me believe that
Genesis must be historical, are not taking very seriously.
My view explains why
1. Adam was alone when he was created. He did not evolve as part of a
population.
2. Explained the need for a mate. Because Adam's chromosomal fusion was a
rare, rare event and there was no one like him on earth.
3. Was created from inanimate matter, or to quote Hayward, "God miraculously
created Adam from non-living matter (though without telling us precisely how
he did it)"
If you think my view does not fit into these criteria especially number 3,
then explain to me exactly why you believe a corpse is animate?
And if you believe that the Bible does not tell us precisely how he did it,
then as Hayward states, then how can you be sure that God didn't do it the
way I suggest?
glenn
My view also explains the scientific data
1. We have pseudogenes in common with the chimp because our bodies are
related to them.
2. We have similar banding on the chromosomes because our bodies are related
to them.
3. Our DNA is 98% similar to chimps because our bodies are related to them.
What I find amazing is that my view fits within the view you and Russ are
advocating yet you won't explain why a corpse is not suitable as inanimate
matter! This morning, I was reading Ryries, _Basic Theology_ 1986, and ran
into the following statement speaking of the origin of man,
"It did not involve any evolutionary processes that relate man to some
sub-,non-, or prehuman brute forms . That would mean that as far as his
physical nature was concerned man was derived from some non-human animal form
into which God breathed the breath of life. Genesis 2:7 does not support
this theory at all. Indeed, it reinformces the fact of special creaton from
materials that were inorganic; it does not lend support to the idea of a
derived creation from some previously living form." p. 189.
Two things. 1. If Genesis 2:7 teaches that it was from INORGANIC matter
that Adam was created, then that technically means no hydrocarbon groups
were used to create Adam. This makes no sense since I am probably about 50%
hydrocarbon and presumably Adam was also. Ryrie's view if taken literally
would require that God perform atomic transmutation to convert the
non-hydrogen, non-carbon atoms in to Carbon and hydrogen so that Adam could
have hydrocarbons. But I doubt very seriously that this is what Genesis 2:7
is teaching. If Ryrie means inanimate matter, then he should use that word.
While I would agree that my view could be charged with not being acceptable
to someone who believed that Genesis 2:7 taught that inorganic matter was the
only suitable material for Adam to be formed from, but I would contend that
the Bible does not teach that. I would further contend that a corpse IS
under anyone's definition INANIMATE!!!!! As such, it should fit within the
requirement that God used inanimate matter.
glenn