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

Randy,

You're bang on and not missing anything. Those who are missing it are the
ones who feel they must hold Genesis hostage by a conflation of ANE
literary expression and 18th century C.E. systematics.

It's always been clear to me that "after its kind" is in one generation,
that parents of a certain species give birth to an offspring of that same
species. Even the most ardent fundy atheist evilutionist would agree to
that. Why do some believers feel they must interpret this concept in a
way to create unnecessary conflict with scripture and reality? There's
already enough of that. Is it just to build a strawman to attack
biological evolution?

Roger

P.S. The YEC apologists are always yammering that Genesis should be read
in a "simple plain clear manner obvious even to a child" (SPCOETAC). It's
interesting that my SPCOETAC exegesis is in no conflict with modern
science regarding this "kind" business.

> 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
> To: SteamDoc@aol.com
> Cc: 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.