He quotes from Goodwin:
>>1. Organisms are constructed by groups of genes whose goal
>> is to leave more copies of themselves. The hereditary
>> material is "selfish".
>>2. The inherently selfish qualities of the hereditary material
>> are reflected in the competitive interactions between organisms
>> that result in survival of fitter variants, generally by the
>> more successful genes.
>>3. Organisms are constantly trying to get better (fitter). In a
>> mathematical/geometrical metaphor, they are always trying to
>> climb up local peaks in a fitness landscape to do better than
>> their competitors. However, this landscape keeps changing as
>> evolution proceeds, so the struggle is endless.
>>4. Paradoxically, humans can develop altruistic qualities that
>> contradict their inherently selfish nature by means of educational
>> and other cultural efforts.
>>
>>Does this look familiar? Here is a very similar list of principles
>>from another domain:
>>
>>1. Humanity is born in sin; we have a base inheritance.
>>2. Humanity is therefore condemned to a life of conflict and
>>3. Perpetual toil.
>>4. By faith and moral effort humanity can be saved from its fallen,
>> selfish state.
>=========================end Goodwin==================
>
>Now wait one minuite. I thought humanity could be saved only through
>accepting the gift of the blood of Jesus and His righteousness. What I see
>in this quote is a mixture of the holy with the unholy; a mixture of
>biblical christianity and humanism. Where does the Bible say that "Moral
>effort" is an agent of Salvation?
>
I guess these lists are parallel if you accept that the development of
altruistic qualities is the same as redemption. I know of a good number of
non-Christians whose altruism contradicts the inherent selfishness of
humanity--Ghandi for example. To me, this is not the same thing as being
redeemed and forgiven despite a sinful nature. So, I don't agree that
Neal's parallel proves that Goodwin has polluted Christian faith.
>This reminds me that the danger of mixing Theism with Evolution is that
>people might get confused on the most fundamental spiritual level. People
>might think that if, according to evolution, humans can rid there genes of
>"selfish" qualities by natural selection and later through education,
[big leap]
then
>humanity can rid their souls of sin by moral effort and later by perhaps by
>going to church. Faith is mentioned also, but it's not alone. It's "Faith
>_plus_ moral effort = salvation" as I read Goodwin.
>If you're in the TE camp, and you profess Christianity, I'm not going to
>question the authenticity of your faith. But I am going to ask you to
>compare the marks of your Christianity to the Biblical marks so that you
>can decide for your self if your marks are authentic or counterfeit.
The second sentence contradicts the disclaimer of the first. The
implication is that if one understands that the first two chapers of Genesis
are primarily for laying out the relationship between God and the creation,
God and humans, and humans and the creation, and not for explaining a
scientific account of the creation, then the marks of ones faith are
counterfeit. I suggest that you and God tend to marks of your faith and
leave God and me to worry about the marks of mine.
>I realize that bringing the discussion to this level may make some angry
>(I've already recieved a private e-mail expressing the hope that my form of
>Christianity will die--Truth generally has this type of effect on people.)
So does arrogance.
The rest of Neal's post is ludicrous. He makes a huge leap that because of
the view of Genesis I mentioned above that I automatically believe that I
can be redeemed by being a good person. My Baptist pastor would be
surprised to learn this.
[clip]
>One point of interacting on this reflector is to discern the correct from
>the counterfeit even in the realm of interpretation of creation-related
>scripture. All because there's a debate over different interpretations of
>scripture doesn't mean we have license to interpret however we want.
That goes for you as well, Neal.
I have often wondered why the Bible contains things are difficult for us to
understand and to reconcile with our experiences. Some of these include the
Evolution/Creation controversy, but this also includes the debate over the
role of women in the church, worship styles, use of gifts, the problem of
evil, and so on. My feeling is that we find these areas difficult not
because of our failure to adhere to a certain understanding of scripture,
but because God wants us to continue to seek a relationship with Him. As we
ponder the meaning of these difficult areas, we pray and search
ourselves--both of which help build and mature this relationship. If we
resort to quick autocratic explanations of these gray areas, I submit that
spiritual growth can be attenuated. Don't get me wrong--I am not trying to
limit the authority of the Bible, rather I believe that understanding it can
take a great deal of work on our part. There is nothing wrong for someone
to hold to specific beliefs about Genesis, but it is wrong for him to
prejudge anyone else who does not adhere to the same belief. Faith is a
continuous process and the one who has all the answers to these hard
questions has stopped growing and expects the rest of us to stop as well.
Shalom
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"...a university is a collection of disparate academic entrepreneurs united
only by a common grievance over parking." Clark Kerr, former Chancellor
of the Univ. of California
__________________________________________________________________________