Re: Special Creation

 If God specially created humans from dust that contained genetic material
from earlier homonids, I can't imagine that it wouldn't also contain
gentetic material from frogs, birds, plants, bacteria etc. So why would the
homonid DNA be any more significant?

Good point. I guess the answer would have to be that God selected the
hominid DNA because he intended us to be hominids. This would be an act of
special creation using existing materials, not a willy-nilly scooping up of
whatever "dust" happened to be lying around.

But why would He? :)

I suppose an answer might be that the hominid body plan and genetic history
provides a basis for, among other things, the big brains we have that let us
reason, communicate, exercise free will, and make moral decisions.

I don't see how "pure" theistic evolution answers any of these questions in
a more satisfying way. Why would God soveriegnly direct evolution to
produce a hominid line leading to Homo Sapiens? The answer seems to be the
same -- really, we don't know the mind of God, but we can assume the the
hominid body plan and genetic history are part of God's plan for creating us
as sapient, reasoning beings, since we're here and this is who we are.
Whether God produced that body plan and genetic history through a scenario
like mine or through "pure" theistic evolution, the "why" questions remain.

On 3/1/06, Brent Foster <bdffoster@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi David
>
> I've been following this thread and I notice you have asked
that question several times and not many folks seem to be
addressing it. I think I know what you mean so I will try to
address it. I don't think the "genetic clay" idea works for
explaining the observerd genetic link between humans and
chimpanzees. If God specially created humans from dust that
contained genetic material from earlier homonids, I can't imagine
that it wouldn't also contain gentetic material from frogs, birds,
plants, bacteria etc. So why would the homonid DNA be any more
significant? We, and all of life are indeed made from the dust of
the earth, but of course our chemical composition is profoundly
different. The dust of the ground undoubtedly did, and does contain
a number of chemical compounds that are decomposed and processed
into new compounds by the biological machinery of any
given organism. This includes DNA, as well as countless other
proteins. If God is able to assemble complex biological machinery
and re-arrange chemical compounds at will (and of course He is) why
would he need to use existing DNA? I realize this is one of those
"Why would God..." questions, and of course we will never fully
comprehend His purposes. But why would He? :)
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
> ---- David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> =============
>
> The traditional interpretation is that Man is created ex nihlo.
(bara)
> There is no mention of using the rib of an animal for example,
like Eve was
> fashioned (banah) out of Adam's. And this is the issue that has
to be
> addressed. Was man created ex nihlo like the heavens and earth or
was he
> fashioned, shaped out of what was already around?
>
> I thought the traditional "literal" interpretation was that Adam
was created
> not ex nihlo, but out of the "dust of the Earth" ("apar" = dust,
clay,
> "adamah" = earth, soil, cultivatable land) as stated in Genesis
2:7 and Gen.
> 3:19 ("from dust you are and to dust you will return").
>
> In a practical sense, I dont knows what "genetic clay" is. When
microbes
> are engineered the genetic material that is inserted is not taken
from the
> dust of the earth or the ground, but from other living organisms.
>
> "Genetic clay" just my stab at a memorable phrase, not a
description of some
> actual stuff. The point about genetic engineering is just that
genetic
> engineering creates a real, not apparent, genetic link between
the
> engineered microbe and the entire evolutionary line of microbes
that
> preceded it. So a Homo Erectus or some closer ancestor of ours
dies and
> begins to decay; God takes the "dust" of that decaying material
and
> "genetically engineers" it to create a modern human, and breathes
into that
> human the "breath of life." It seems not entirely different from
God
> breathing spirit into an existing, living homo sapiens, which is
what some
> TE's propose.
>
>
> On 3/1/06, jack syme wrote:
> >
> >
> > Yes I have seen you mention this. I have not seen much of a
response to
> it and that is in part why I made this thread. The issue is not
just where
> Adam is in the timeline, but was he created specially or not. Or
maybe we
> need some more work to understand what it means that God
"created" man.
> >
> > The traditional interpretation is that Man is created ex nihlo.
(bara)
> There is no mention of using the rib of an animal for example,
like Eve was
> fashioned (banah) out of Adam's. And this is the issue that has
to be
> addressed. Was man created ex nihlo like the heavens and earth or
was he
> fashioned, shaped out of what was already around? Just from that
simple
> look at it, it would seem that since the author used barah for
Adam, and
> banah for Eve, the biblical view does not seem to support your
idea.
> >
> > In a practical sense, I dont knows what "genetic clay" is.
When microbes
> are engineered the genetic material that is inserted is not taken
from the
> dust of the earth or the ground, but from other living organisms.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Opderbeck
> > To: jack syme
> > Cc: glennmorton@entouch.net ; Terry M.Gray ; asa@calvin.edu
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:21 AM
> > Subject: Re: Special Creation
> >
> >
> > So the scientific evidence suggests that we have to abandon the
idea
> that our progenitor, whether it was 100k or 1.5 Ma, was created
out of
> nothing with no connection to the rest of the tree of life.
> >
> > Jack -- another possibility: could Adam have been specially
created
> out of "something" -- "the dust of the ground" -- that included
genetic
> material (skin cells, hair, etc.; or stem cells?) from earlier
> hominids? There is no "appearance of a connection" fallacy here
-- there
> is a real connection, but it is not the one evolutionary
> science suggests. The "clay" the master potter used to form man
was
> "genetic clay." Which seems to make sense to me. When
biotechnology
> today "creates" an organism -- say, a microbe that digests oil
wastes --
> it doesn't do so ex nihlo, it clones existing microbes and
manipulates
> existing DNA to produce desired characteristics. If we humans are
able
> to "create" garbage-eating microbes within only fifty years or so
of
> learning about DNA, couldn't God have specially created a human
in a
> similar way?
> >
> > I've been thinking about this alot over the past couple of
weeks, and
> the above is something that came to me. I don't want to suggest
it's the
> "right" view or even "my" view, but it does seem feasible and
seems to
> have been omitted from the conversation so far. I'm sure I got
this from
> somewhere. Does anyone know of a paper or book or recognized
position
> that takes this kind of approach?
> >
>
> > On 3/1/06, jack syme wrote:
> > >
> > > In all of this discussion about geneologies, mtDNA, and Adam,
an
> important theological point is not getting pushed aside somewhat
and
> that is the idea of special creation. Was Adam created out of
> the dust of the earth as a new creature or not?
> > >
> > > In the evolutionary model humans are part of the tree of
life. We
> all have a common ancestor that utlmately evolved into
chimpanzees,
> gorillas, and humans. So we are geneticall connected to primates,
and
> mammals to a lesser extent, and all vertebrates, etc etc. And in
fact
> the scientific evidence supports this. We have been focusing
lately
> on templetons autosomal analysis of human migration. But
> MHC loci, psudogenes, and chromosomal banding patterns, clearly
> connect us to apes.
> > >
> > > So the scientific evidence suggests that we have to abandon
the idea
> that our progenitor, whether it was 100k or 1.5 Ma, was created
out
> of nothing with no connection to the rest of the tree of life.
> > >
> > > At this point, I am leaning towards Dick's view. If the
creation of
> man means nothing about his actual first appearance (in a
> biological sense) then there is no reason to make Adam
> a homo erectus. I am concerned about Glenn's argument against
> evidence for a substantial flood in neolithic times, which I
think is
> the strongest argument against Dick's view, (and this would apply
to
> Phil's view also).
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 1 13:06:52 2006