Hi Walt,
(1) I take your point about the limitations of my 'dog-eat-dog'
scenario. However, I think you would agree that the matter of natural
selection would, in many cases, have been settled by a 'fight to the
death'.
(2) The evils of our world, ultimately, appear to emanate from the Fall.
While the creation was in its pristine and perfect condition we are
informed that man and the animals were, by divine ordinance, vegetarians
(Gn.1:29-30). Things changed after the Fall. We learn that Abel was a
shepherd who offered burnt offerings to the Lord (Gn.4:4). However, it
is not until Gn.9:3 - following the Flood - that we read of God's
positive encouragement to would-be eaters of meat.
(3) Concerning the authority of the Scriptures, I think the best I can
do is to refer you to my recent posting to Christopher, and to quote
some words of Simon Peter, "... we have not followed cunningly devised
fables..." (2Pet.1:16).
(4) Man was never involved in contemplating the true extent of the
Flood. As I've explained to Robert, this is a red herring that is
frequently presented as a defence for a "local" interpretation (and for
evolution!). No, God was in charge of the whole project, from beginning
to end, and He certainly knew the earth was a sphere! As far as we know
He did not discuss this with Noah; why should He? He simply gave His
reasons for the course of action He was about to take, and told Noah
what He had to do to be saved from the deluge, with his loved ones and
the animals. Noah just obeyed orders. Why is it necessary to suggest
that because Noah knew no science, the Flood had to be "local"? This,
clearly, does not follow.
(5) You said, "One only gets into trouble with the Bible by declaring it
to be more than God intended it to be." I was hoping that the logical
development outlined in my last posting to Christopher would have
convinced you that the Bible is a unique body of revealed truth,
graciously provided by a loving God (who desires that none shall
perish!). Walt, if you - as a Christian - see any errors in my logic,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Vernon
Walter Hicks wrote:
> 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 : Wed Jun 12 2002 - 15:57:42 EDT