Re: Special Creation

Pure TE also provides a way to see a quite expansive role for God in
the direction of spiritual beings. Perhaps, as Michael Ruse argues in
"Can a Darwinian be a Christian?", there is a planet X (or many such
planets) where sentient beings are not hominids. Nevertheless, they
can be said to have been created from the dust of X to be spiritual
beings. And they could be visited by an X-Christ... not that any of
this answers the "Why" question, naturally.

Chris

On 3/1/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 13:26:37 2006