Vernon,
I tend to agree that there are valid arguments on both sides of the
debate, even though I currently believe more in evolution than not.
However, I would like to offer some thoughts
Vernon Jenkins wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> On this occasion I shall limit my attention to those matters arising
> from the first paragraph of my last posting, and your response to it.
> I had said:
>
> Despite your assurances re the cast-iron nature of the evidence for
> evolution, those of us who accept the Bible as a unique body of
> revealed truth find it impossible to believe for the simple reason
> that the alleged process is completely at odds with the direct
> teaching of the Incarnated Creator, Jesus Christ. For example, how do
> you square "...Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
> and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind...and...Thou shalt love
> thy neighbour as thyself." (Mt.22:37-30) with the principle 'dog eat
> dog'? Why would Our Lord - the personification of love - choose to use
> such a process, declare it complete, and then pronounce it all to be
> 'very good'? It is surely an affront to common sense and to the
> intelligence of every Bible-believer to equate 'creation' with
> 'evolution'.
To say that evolution means "dog eat dog" is to take a model of
evolution which probably wrong. natural selection -- which seems to be
valid need not infer any more than then: "in a supply of limited
resources, one type off physical characteristic will be more suited than
another. Therefore those with that characteristic will more likely
survive. Not only is that not "dog eat dog" but is is clearly true in
this universe that God created.
For example. If some animals were surviving by eating fruit from tress
and a disease attacked those trees with low hanging fruit, it would not
be long before the taller animals would be the surviving ones and that
characteristics would be passed along. frankly, That is what "natural
selection" has meant to me -- not "dog eat dog" -- but I could be wrong.
snip
> Christopher, so far I believe I have said nothing with which you, as a
> Christian, could disagree. However, to press on:
>
> (6) If I believe Creation was accomplished by an extended process of
> biological evolution, then as a Christian I am confronted by two large
> obstacles, viz
>
>
> * How do I explain the required chameleon-like behaviour of God's
> Son [and, ultimately, of God Himself - whose counsel is said to
> be immutable (Heb.6:17)]? As Creator, He opts for a long,
> loveless, process; and, as Redeemer, He becomes the epitome of
> Love!!
>
If you argue this, then what about what has happened since? How do you
deal with the continuing evils of our world. Animalks do eat other
animals and we do also. If He does not stop these now, then why do you
complain about the past?
> * The 'Book of Nature' and 'Book of Life' (the Bible) have the same
> Author. Should they not harmonise with one another, therefore?
> Why, for example, does the first say landgoing creatures were
> created before birds, while the second says the opposite? And
> why, according to the first, is the Creation ongoing - the second
> having informed us that it was completed in 6 days? Again, why
> doesn't the second openly declare the Flood to be 'local', and
> refrain from using language like, "And behold, I, even I am
> bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh
> in which is the breath of life, from under heaven."? And what was
> the giving of the rainbow all about? Finally, why so much fuss
> regarding Cain's murder of his brother Abel? Under an
> evolutionary regime, such goings on would surely be commonplace
> in its later stages!
>
I would offer several things:
1.) It is men who have declared the Bible to be infallible. It never
does that itself. If we consider that it was inspired -- but delivered
to humans with all their limitations (as well as the limitations of
language) ---- there is most likely the possibility of some errors.
Moreover, the contradictions of some texts make that very likely.
2.) There is also the possible interpretation that some parts of the old
testament are like "parables". I don't subscribe to that, but it is
indeed a possibility.
3.) The ancients considered the world to be pretty small. To them a
local flood would be one that covered the entire world as they new it.
4.) One only gets into trouble with the Bible by declaring it to be more
than God intended it to be (IMHO).
> I realise these are awkward questions - but they need to be asked, and
> they need to be honestly addressed by all who take upon themselves the
> title 'Christian evolutionist'. In addition to yourself, perhaps Wayne
> and Stephen - having recently contributed to this thread - would like
> to offer some answers.
Excuse me for sticking my nose in.
sincerely,
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 09 2002 - 20:24:58 EDT