Hi Wendee,
Sorry it's taken so long, but here is my response to the second of your
postings.
Wendee Holtcamp wrote:
> 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).
That is my primary objection - but there are others.
> 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?
Yes. Before the Fall everything created had been accorded divine approval
(Gen.1:31).
> 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).
Those who present us with 'overwhelming evidence' are of an essentially
materialistic outlook. As Christians I believe it is essential that such claims
are closely scrutinised - particularly bearing in mind the teaching of
Eph.6:10:18, where the _word of God_ (ie the Bible) is defined as _the sword of
the Spirit_ and must be allowed a voice in all deliberations re origins.
> 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.
I agree that there are many things we cannot understand. For example, take the
case of Job: Satan petitions; he is given freedom to act (but within strictly
defined limits). Again, we read that King Saul was troubled by an 'evil spirit
from God' (1Sam.18:10); further, the Lord Himself asking for ideas re the modus
operandi of the imminent demise of His enemy, King Ahab (1Ki.22:20-23). Clearly,
such matters are beyond our comprehension, and appear to be far removed from the
gospel of Christ. Yet they are realities which cannot be lightly ignored.
However, to return to the main question: while God may _allow_ bad things to
happen in this fallen world, I believe it unreasonable to suppose that He would
freely _choose_ evolution as His method of creation.
Sincerely, and with best wishes,
Vernon
>
>
> 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 : Wed Jun 19 2002 - 15:39:10 EDT