Re: Nature article on ID

On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:22:01 -0400 "Dick Fischer"
<dickfischer@earthlink.net> writes:
> Hi Dave, you wrote:
>
> > It sounds bad if one takes a silly physicalist position.
>
> Well, you mentioned "mating" which is a purely physical process. So
> when
> chimps do it no soul is transeferred because the parents didn't have
> souls,
> but when humans reproduce a non-physical spirit through a magical
> indescribeable action, not part of the sperm or egg, passes from
> parents to
> offspring. Is that how it works?
>
> What happens if the child is aborted in the seventh month?
> Stillborn?
> Lives for a few days and expires due to severe birth defects? Dies
> of
> leukemia before reaching two? Since these are real life situations,
> I
> would just be interested in knowing what the rules are.
>
> > If one is Christian and the soul is not physical (unless you're
> a
> non-reductive
> > physicalist, when it is), then it does not have to be transferred
> > physically. Note that in my discussion, "natural" is not equated
> to
> > "physical" or to being studied by the scientific method. Also, the
> law
> > may decide that an American is an adult at age 18, but that kind
> of
> > arbitrary specification does not have to describe reality. Don't
> ascribe
> > nonsensical views to others when they reside only in your
> opinion.
>
> Testy.
>
> Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
> Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
> www.genesisproclaimed.org
>
I think Moorad answered your first question. You say mating is purely
physical. I didn't. I Corinthians 6:13-20 and Ephesians 5:31f indicate
that there is more than the physical. You use the pejorative term
"magical," which implies something outside of nature, where I deny it. I
said that the mating relationship of human beings involves physical and
non-physical aspects, not matters that are not natural. It's just that I
insist that there is more to hman nature than the physical--which seems a
necessary consequence of your theory that Adam received a soul from God
about 7000 B.C. Am I misinterpreting your position, or are you shifting
it for the purposes of argument?

Then you come up with a bunch of questions. If I were dogmatically
pro-life or pro-choice (poor labels, but the ones used), I could give you
an answer by spouting the party line. But I take your approach to be like
that of the gang who asked Jesus about paying taxes. He had a sharp
answer that confounded them. I'm not that clever. If I think of
something, I'll happily skewer you. ;-)
Dave
Received on Tue May 3 19:40:15 2005