Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

I have been reluctant to accept Glenn's idea for two reasons, the first
being that the indicators of the bible are clear I think, that Adam was
Neolithic, and secondly because he has not convinced me that ancient
evidence for burial, etc is the same as being made in God's image.

I have been kicking around the idea in my head that being made in God's
image means capacity for abstract language. Although I am sure that there
is evidence for this well before the Neolithic period, so maybe being made
in God's image means the ability to make and understand written language.
But I am probably putting the cart before the horse here so to speak, by
looking for a very recent development in human abilities. But language,
especially abstract language, and definitely written language, is uniquely
human. And, if John refers to Christ God as the Word, is it really that far
a stretch to consider the opening of John, and the opening of the
scriptures, as parallels in this way?

I would be interested in hearing details that anyone on here knows about the
history of human language, especially written language. I am sure someone
has done a linguistic analysis of all languages, and perhaps has traced the
origin of all languages, to a single "proto-language" that I suspect was in
existence about the time of interest.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Merv" <mrb22667@kansas.net>
To: "Brent Foster" <bdffoster@charter.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:41 PM
Subject: 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.
>

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 20:01:40 2007