On 08 Jan 97 13:04:07 EST, Jim Bell wrote:
JB>Welcome to the coming out party, Steve!
The only problem with cyberspace parties is that the party pies are
virtual! ;-)
SJ>I am still implacably opposed to the term "Evolution" as
>describing my position: 1. I regard "Evolution" and "Creation" as
>fundamentally antithetical concepts and to combine them (eg.
>"Theistic Evolution" or "Evolutionary Creation") is IMHO oxymoronic;
>2. I find the evidence for Darwinist macro-evolution to be somewhere
>between weak and non-existent (I do not regard evidence for common
>ancestry as necessarily evidence for Darwinist macro-evolution); 3.
>Apologetically the terms "Theistic Evolution" and "Evolutionary
>Creation" are worse than useless. Naturalistic Evolutionists are
>unimpressed with it since it adds nothing new scientifically. OTOH
>they repel other Christians, especially YECs. If Christians are
>ever going to be united on this topic, the "E" will have to go from
>TE/EC! There is no way that YECs are ever going to accept anything
>with "Evolution" in it. The alternative to not changing is an
>endless war between TEs/ECs and YECs.
>JB>I agree with you. Evolution is too loaded a term, and really has
>been since 1925, when the great spin doctor Mencken made sure it
>would always have an anti-religious patina about it. We can quibble
>about what it really means, Who is really behind it, etc., but in the
>real world of the marketplace of ideas, the term is almost
>self-defeating for Christians, IMO.
Agreed, except I would say it is not *almost* self-defeating, it is
self-defeating period. Using "evolution" to describe a Christian
position may have been possible in Asa Gray's day, but it is not
today, when "evolution" means a materialistic, fully naturalistic
theory of change over time.
>SJ>I see Mediate Creation as firmly in the Calvinistic Reformed
>tradition as exemplified by Calvin, Hodge and Warfield. These men
>reserved "Creation" for the initial ex nihilo bringing into being of
>the raw material of the cosmos; but were prepared to allow much room
>for God working through natural causes in the development of that raw
>material. However, they rejected most strongly the idea that God
>could not intervene supernaturally in that development, sometimes
>calling it "Special Providence".
>JB>Interesting. I like it.
Whew! Got over the first hurdle! ;-)
>JB>The real key is man as homo divinus. As you state in another
>post, biblical man has the capacity to have a covenant relationiship
>with God.
Agreed. Hayward uses the term `Homo spiritualis', which I like
better. This would rule out all non-anatomically modern homo sapiens
for starters. Templeton claims that the rapid development of man's
intellect sets Homo sapiens apart in a new biological Kingdom:
"We are not surprised by the recent origin and rapid evolution of
modern humans. It does indeed seem a quantum leap from the animal
world to a creature with such great potentialities for creativity,
ethical reasoning, and altruism-a "kingdom-level speciation."
(Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose", 1994, p175)
JB>This would involve sophisticated language and mental capacity, of
>course, and the ONLY evidence we have of that is recent, e.g.
>shaman-art. This is decisive, in my view.
I would be a little bit more reserved about claiming, as Hugh Ross
does, that "shaman-art" is "decisive" evidence for Homo spiritualis.
It may turn out that Neandertal man did something similar.
Besides, this may lock us into a too-early date for Adam. I am
personally inclining to the view, because of the Neolithic elements
of Genesis 4 and the difficulty of stretching the Biblical
genealogies too far, that Adam may have been very recent, eg. within
the last 20,000 years. This would mean that Adam was drawn from
Upper Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens, but they were not his
descendants. On this view, Adam would be the *representative*
covenant head of all Homo sapiens sapiens, but not necessarily the
physical ancestor of all:
"Adam's 'federal' headship of humanity extended, if that was the
case, outwards to his contemporaries as well as onwards to his
offspring, and his disobedience disinherited both alike. There may
be a biblical hint of such a situation in the surprising impression
of an already populous earth given by the words and deeds of Cain in
4:14,17. Even Augustine had to devote a chapter to answering those
who 'find this a difficulty', and although the traditional answer is
valid enough... the persistence of this old objection could be a
sign that our presuppositions have been inadequate. Again, it may be
significant that, with one possible exception, the unity of mankind
'in Adam' and our common status as sinners through his offence are
expressed in Scripture in terms not of heredity but simply of
solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us any argument from physical
descent such as that of Hebrews 7:9,10 (where Levi shares in
Abraham's act through being 'still in the loins of his ancestor') .
Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have implicated all men because he was
the federal head of humanity, somewhat as in Christ's death 'one died
for all, therefore all died' (2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part
in making Adam 'the figure of him that was to come' (Rom. 5:14)"
(Kidner D., "Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary", 1967,
pp29-30)
>JB>How did God create him? I agree with Russ Matmaan that animal
>ancestry is out. But even if God did "breath divinity" into a
>hominid at some point in developmental history, that would certainly
>be an instance of special, mediate creation.
I cannot agree with you and Russ on that "animal ancestry is out".
The Bible say "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" (Gn 2:7). But it also says that God made the animals
on the same sixth day (Gn 1:24-31); from the earth (Gn 1:24), that
they also have "the breath of life" (Gn 1:30), and they are also
"living creature" using exactly the same Heb. words that are
rendered "living being" for Adam in Gn 2:28:
"This work of God should not be interpreted as a mechanical process,
as if He first formed a body of clay and then put a soul into it.
When God formed the body, He formed it so that by the breath of His
Spirit man at once became a living soul. Job 33:4; 32:8. The word
"soul" in this passage does not have the meaning which we usually
ascribe to it-a meaning rather foreign to the Old Testament -but
denotes an animated being, and is a description of man as a whole.
The very same Hebrew term, nephesh chayyah (living soul or being) is
also applied to the animals in Gen. 1:21,24,30" (Berkhof L.,
"Systematic Theology", Banner of Truth: London, 1966 reprint,
pp192-193)
>JB>Either way you look at it, though, homo divinus was sudden and
>recent.
Agreed. While natural processes may have been involved, the whole
process was decidedly unnatural, in the simultaneous development of
the separate components each needed to make up the imago dei, and
without one of which it would not be realised:
"Q: The appearance of human beings - is that a miracle, in the sense
you mean?
S: Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among
contemporary biologists - I mean voices other than mine -
who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm that has dominated
discussion for the past twenty years. Gradualists and saltationists
alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of
the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems
that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism,
with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a
doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints
conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the
pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central
nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes,
permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of
view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely
different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift, a
bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing
that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. Some
biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone
actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually
existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is
that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy."
(Schutzenberger M-P, "The Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with
Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger", Origins & Design, Vol. 17.2, Spring
1996).
Neo-Darwinist macroevolution is totally unable to explain the origin
of intelligent human beings. If there is one thing that Gould,
Dawkins, and Paul Davies are united on, it is that their naturalistic
theories would not predict the appearance of human beings:
"Run the tape again, and let the tiny twig of Homo sapiens expire in
Africa. Other hominids may have stood on the threshold of what we
know as human possibilities, but many sensible scenarios would never
generate our level of mentality. Run the tape again, and this time
Neanderthal perishes in Europe and Homo erectus in Asia (as they did
in our world). The sole surviving human stock, Homo erectus in
Africa, stumbles along for a while, even prospers, but does not
speciate and therefore remains stable. A mutated virus then wipes
Homo erectus out, or a change in climate reconverts Africa into
inhospitable forest. One little twig on the mammalian branch, a
lineage with interesting possibilities that were never realized,
joins the vast majority of species in extinction. So what? Most
possibilities are never realized, and who will ever know the
difference?" (Gould S.J., "Wonderful Life", 1991, p320)
"PD: ...The picture which Richard is giving us is that it's much
more of a lottery, much more of a blind groping about. The question
that we have to ask is if the earth was hit by an asteroid tomorrow
and everything but simple microbes were destroyed and we came back in
another 3 or 4 billion years, would we expect to find homo sapiens
here aga in. Well, of course not.
RD: Of course we wouldn't!
PD: No, of course not. But the question is would we expect to find any
intelligent life and I think most biologists would say no.
McK: Richard Dawkins, I know you're bursting to say something there.
RD: Yes. It is not in my view sensible to invoke fundamental laws of
physical improvement for the biological improvement of complexity or
running speed or anything else. If you wiped our life and started again-
no, you would not get homo sapiens. I tell you what you would get, you
would probably get a great diversity of living form . You'd probably get
plants, animals, you'd probably get parasites, you'd probably get
predators, you'd probably get large predators, small predators. You
might well get flight, you might well get sight. There are all sorts
of things that you can guess that you might get. You would certainly not
get a re-run of what we've got."
(McKew M., interview with Dawkins R. & Davies P., "Lateline", 19
June 1996, in "The Origin of the Universe", Australian Rationalist, No.
41, Spring 1996, pp72-73).
Naturalistic Evolution cannot explain the simultaneous rapid
emergence of human beings. Neither can Theistic Evolution because it
limits itself to the same natural mechanisms as naturalistic
evolution. The only theories that can explain it are those that
admit the super-natural intervention of an Intelligent Designer, eg.
Fiat Creation, Progressive Creation and Mediate Creation.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------