From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 22:04:51 EDT
Glenn Morton wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> >Behalf Of Michael Roberts
> >Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:02 PM
>
> >Ted is right to see that the doctrine of the Fall is the pivot to YEC as
> >they present the case if a snake did not deceive Eve then all
> >doctrine up to
> >the atonement collapse like skittles. It has superficial great
> >appeal as doe
> >the argument that there was no death before the Fall as the wages of sin is
> >death.
>
> and atheists have not helped the evolutionary case by claiming things like:
>
> "If all the animals and man have been evolved in this ascendant manner, then
> there would have been no first parents, no Eden, and no Fall. And if there
> had been no Fall, the entire historical fabric of Christianity, the story of
> the first sin and the reason for an atonement, upon which current teaching
> bases Christian emotion and morality, collapses like a house of cards."~H.
> G. Wells, The Outline of History, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1961), p. 776-777
>
> This is why IMO it is important for evolutionary approaches to Genesis to
> have actual first parents, not just the typical smooth transition. Without
> first parents, you can't have the Fall in most YECs minds, (and of course, I
> agree with them, but that is another debate and most on this board disagree
> with me).
Come on Glenn! This is the old YEC/anti-evolution tactic of citing
non-Christians evolutionists as theological experts when they talk about the dire
theological consequences of evolution - as if they accept their expertise on anything
else. Why should H.G. Wells (H,G. Wells! He wasn't even an expert on science, let alone
theology.) be considered an authority on these matters?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 22:07:21 EDT