Vernon (and others interested in this thread)
Am I correct that you say you find it opposite to God's character that He
would bring about Creation through a "dog-eat-dog" process? Is that the
primary basis of your argument against evolution? (trying to summarize what
you've said).
If so, I can understand the point. I think its a valid and interesting
theological question or dilemma. I wonder, do you accept that this
dog-eat-dog world does indeed exist out there? And if so (which it obviously
does both for biota and humans), then do you attribute its existence to the
Fall?
If that is the case, then I indeed understand your opposition to the idea of
evolution as the means of creation.
I still, however, feel that we may have our personal wishes for how God is,
or how God did or does things, but that won't necessarily change the way He
did indeed do them. Just like the earth-centered universe idea going "out
the window" sometimes the church (body of believers) just has to modify
their understanding because of overwhelming evidence. (I understand that you
currently do not accept this overwhelming evidence).
Are there any theological/real-life issues you have with God that you
question why God has to "be that way" or "do that"? I mean, the Holocaust,
or that Jasper man dragging to death of that black man, or child abuse. What
is the purpose of child abuse? How can God allow it to happen? I'm asking a
rhetorical question. I don't expect an answer -- I am sure we can give lots
of possible and reasonable explanations why bad things happen, or "have to"
happen but that doesn't eliminate some people's overall questions about
God's existence because of them.
My main point with this is that just because evolution is personally
distasteful to your understanding of a loving God, doesn't mean its not the
way God chose to create. There are many things that God allows to happen
that are distasteful, and don't appear to serve any grand purpose (though
they may indeed in the end), but they unquestionably happen.
Wendee
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com
Environmental Journalist ~~ www.greendzn.com
Adjunct Instructor of Biology, Kingwood College
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
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 - 21:08:25 EDT