>My first observation on this is that Glen obviously believes that the
>Bible has something about origins which has a bearing on our science.
>Thus, Glen is not a "typical" Theistic Evolutionist - who, in my
>experience, uses the "two-book" approach to the relationship between
>science and Revelation and argues that these two books are entirely
>complementary in the way we should read them.
>
IMO, if scripture has nothing to say about origins, then it can not have
very much to say about salvation. The two-book approach always seems to
relegate Scripture to the lesser status as history.
>Glen continues:
>"Genesis 1:11 (NIV) Then God said, "Let the land produce
>vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit
>with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so."
>
>"Here God did not directly create the vegetation. He commanded the
>LAND to produce it. This indirect creation of vegetation is exactly
>what a theistic evolutionist believes happened. The bible supports
>such an interpretation. ..."
>
>There has been discussion of ex nihilo and mediate creation on the
>Reflector before. I don't think that PCs or YECs would insist on
>an interpretation of the creation of plants and animals which would
>exclude mediate creation. Certainly we must all say that the creation
>of man was mediate.
>
I probably would not agree to a mediate creation of man. Genesis 2:7
states:
"the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." NIV
In this case man was formed directly, immediately rather than mediately.
>To go from mediate creation to theistic evolution is quite a jump!
>Glen, are saltationist creationist theologies consistent with
>Theistic Evolution? :-)
>
Absolutely, Gould and Eldredge agree. :-)
>Paul's suggestion of "Christ and Creation" is one seeking to set
>Genesis 1 in the context of the whole of God's revelation. We know
>that Christ was the Agent of Creation - through him the world was
>made. His miracles tell us something of his nature: those who
>witnessed them came to identify him as more than a prophet. Most of
>his miracles were mediate: changing the water into wine, feeding the
>4000 and the 5000, etc.
>
>My response to Glen is to suggest that he defends his position on
>Genesis 1 as one of several possible interpretations of mediate
>creation; and to consider how Genesis 1 is to be integrated with the
>rest of Scripture (perhaps picking up on comments above about the
>meaning of Christ's miracles. Should they not predispose us to
>consider the Genesis 1 creative acts of God as miraculous?).
>
Since I beleive that Genesis 1 occurred 18 billion years ago and was the
proclamations by God of what the universe was to be like rather than the
immediate creation of the finished creation, I can use a couple of verses
to support such a view. Revelation 13:8 says that Christ was the lamb
slain from the foundation of the world. This implies that God planned the
sacrifice long before mankind sinned. Why could he not also plan for
mankind's partial evolution? (see the web page for an explanation of
partial evolution).
Genesis 1 can not be understood as miraculous if one believes in an old
universe. Plants simply did not appear before the sun appeared.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm