Re: [asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

David

This is a false polarisation and a mis-reading of Genesis. I t tries to make Genesis describe God's mode of creation and not that he was the Creator. It allows no accommodation to the thought of the day , assumes that there is precision to the word "kind", overstates the distinctness of the creation of man and woman. No wonder some think men have fewer ribs than women!
To follow this type of interpretation one cannot do science in any form.
Of course it is appealing to evangelicals as it appears more biblical than the average TE who sees Genesis in broad brush impressionism and not as a detailed photograph.
Kinds must be seen as a general popular term used 3000years ago and totally pre-scientific.
This is part of the woeful inheritance of popular evangelicalism which adopts a default literalistic hermeneutic which results in either YEC or various unsatisfactory harmonisations

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: SteamDoc@aol.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:25 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design

  An important thing to realize in making this distinction is that, whatever reasonable things might be said in some ID publications or by people like Dembski, *in actual practice* the ID movement is dominated by "God of the gaps" theology in this second sense.
  Excellent points, I think. Here's why I think this is so: it has little to do with any theological problems with TE. All the theological problems could be overcome. The core issue is hermeneutical: do the "kinds" in Genesis 1 refer to a fixity of species, and do Gen. 1 and 2 require that Adam and Eve were separate creations? The NIV Archeological Study Bible, for example, in the note to Gen. 1:2, states

    If ['evolution' is] taken in a historical sense (the theory that everything now existing has come into its present condition as a result of natural development, all of it having proceeded by natural causes from one rudimentary beginning), such a theory is sharply contradicted by the divine facts revealed in Genesis 1 and 2. It is explicitly stated several times that plants and animals are to reproduce 'according to their kinds.... Moreover, the creation of Adam is sharply distinguished from other aspects of creation, and the creation of Eve is descriged as a distinct act of God. Gen 2:7 (in the Hebrew) clearly teaches that Adam did not exist as an animate being before he was a man, created after the image of God."

  Setting aside why an "archeological" study Bible would contain such a footnote, this is the crux of why ID is so compelling to most evangelicals. If TE proponents want to gain traction among evangelicals, general theological arguments, straw man ID knock-downs, and vague references to "allegory" won't do it. They need to present a solid, compelling exegesis of Gen. 1 and 2 that accounts for the references to "kinds" and for the creation of Adam and Eve within an evolutionary framework.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 10 08:57:27 2006