Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

Thank you thank you thank you, Brent. Well - stated. And if you are
a scoffer for thinking so, then as you pointed out with Paul using the
"merely" spiritual truth that we are Abraham's descendants, you are in
good company. What I do appreciate about Glenn's challenge, though, is
the stinging truth about our tendency to stay in our safe zones with
others who already think like we do (though fellowship does provide
necessary respite and refueling). But it does remind me of the crass
example told of Mennonites (and probably of others as well): [ASAers]
are a lot like manure. They all stink while they're in a pile. To do
any good you have to spread'em around.

--Merv

Brent Foster wrote:
> Hi Glenn and Burgy
> I completely acknowledge the difficulties, no impossibility, of cramming human or animal genetic diversity into a even a hundred thousand years. And I too am impressed by the pyhsical evidence Glenn cites in favor of great antiquity for spirituality in man. But I don't see this as a problem for a neolithic Adam and Noah. I realize this will probably make me a Bible-hating, unbelieving scoffer, but I think the truth of the Bible is spiritual. As christians, Paul tells us we are Abraham's children. But we are no more genetically related to Abraham than we are to Adam and Noah. We don't have to be the lineal descendants of Abraham to share in his blessing, and we don't have to be the lineal descendants of Adam to share in his curse. We are all Adam's spiritual offspring when we sin; we are Noah's spiritual offspring when we trust in God for deliverance, and we are Abraham's spiritual offspring when we trust in Christ for salvation.
>
> It is possible to trace the physical signs of spirituality back in the archeological and paleontological record. Activities such burial of the dead, art work, and physical parameters such as increasing brain size, may indicate a developing spiritual consciousness. And it may be tempting for TEs to speculate at what point in this progression did evolving humans become truly human, or in God's image. But I think the image of God is *entirely* non-physical. In other words I don't think it's possible to say anything at all about when the image of God was imparted based on physical evidence. Of course it seems that God's image bearer would need a brain capable of thought. But other than that restriction, God could have put his image into a snail. By the same token, a race of super intelligent alien beings many times more advanced than us, would not necessarily be in God's image. All of the burials, artwork, or any kind of "spiritual" activity is just a peculiar animal behavior !
 wi!
> thout God's image. I don't think God's image has anything to do with man's physical attributes, whether brain-size, behavior, clothing, lack of clothing, tools, lack of tools etc.
>
> Brent
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 13 18:37:10 2007