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

In my opinion Randy is missing nothing. It is the anti-evolutionists who
fail to distingush between "Birds and reptiles had common ancestors", "
Birds had ancestors that were reptiles" and "One reptile had a bird as
offspring" who are missing something.
Don N

Randy Isaac wrote:

> P.S. Other, of course, than natural hybrids like ligers.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Randy Isaac <mailto:randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Re: Cosmological vs. Biological Design
>
> I'm still puzzled by the way in which "reproduce according to their
> kinds" could be read to be in opposition to any theory of evolution.
> No evolutionist I know has ever argued that an organism might give
> direct birth to another organism that isn't in exactly the same
> species. At most a mutation or two but it's the accumulation of
> mutations and the subsequent isolation of differing individuals that
> eventually gives rise to speciation. So wouldn't all evolutionists
> also agree that all plants and animals reproduce after their kind?
> Literally so. Or what am I missing?
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* SteamDoc@aol.com <mailto:SteamDoc@aol.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 09, 2006 9:25 PM
> *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."
>
>

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 21:29:02 2006