Re: [asa] RE: Conrad Hyers essay

You hit the nail on the head. The rejection of a slime derivation is
just one of many similar arguments which have at the core the implicit
elevation of man, distinguishing us from the rest of slightly(?) less
impressive aspects of Creation. It is part of the whole class of
anthropocentric conceptualizations, distinguished by a lack of humility
and sense of context, physical and scriptural alike. It brings to mind
the classic question on drivers' license exams, whether a license to
drive is a right or a privilege. JimA

Robert Schneider wrote:

> Ted quotes Harry Emerson Fosdick from his letter "A Reply to Mr. Bryan
> in the Name of Religion," published originally in the "New York Times"
> in 1922. (We use to use it in our Religious and Historical
> Perspectives interdisciplinary course at Berea College, along with a
> selection from the Address Bryan was going to deliver at the
> conclusion of the Scopes Trial.)
>
> "Origins prove nothing in the realm of values."
>
> I'd like to add further from Fosdick's letter:
>
> "The fundamental interest that leads Mr. Bryan and others of his
> school to hate evolution is the fear that it will depreciate the
> dignity of man. Just what do they mean? Even in the book of Genesis
> God made man out of the dust of the earth, and that is low enough to
> start with, and evolution starts no lower. As long as God is the
> creative power, what difference does it make if out of dust by sudden
> fiat or out of dust by gradual process God brought man into being.
> Here man is and what he is he is. Were it decided that God had dropped
> him from the sky, he would still be the man he is. If it is decided to
> God brought him up by slow gradations from lower forms of life, he is
> still the man he is.
>
> "The fact is that the process by which man came to be upon the planet
> is a very important scientific problem, but it is not a crucially
> important religious problem. Orgins prove nothing in the realm of
> values. To all folk of spiritual insight, man by whatever process he
> first arrived, is the child of God, made in His image, destined for
> His character."
>
> Fosdick goes on to express great sympathy for the concerns that led
> Bryan for his position, but challenges his attack on evolution.
> Perhaps I should say, the evolution of man, since Bryan, if my memory
> is correct, was a day-age proponent and prepared to accept evolution
> prior to humankind.
>
> I would add, that if I should hear the statement that "I don't believe
> that I am descended from slime" (a common objection), I would say,
> "What's wrong with slime? God created it, too! Isn't everything God
> created good?" "Slime" conjures up an "ugh!, sticky, messy, useless"
> sort of thing and is used to characterize the behavior or character of
> certain persons; it's a rhetorical device designed to appeal to
> negative emotions. Even the word sounds, well, slimy. It ought to be
> challenged.
>
> Bob Schneider
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 31 14:54:18 2007