RE: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

---- Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
I agree whole heartedly that looks don't determine who has the image of God.
3 popes had to decree that those very different looking Native Americans
were, in fact, really sons of Adam and thus were Human. Most spaniards
thought of them as beasts, and then treated them that way by enslaving them.
If the image of God makes no difference to behavior, we might as well say we
humans all have a fighernacht. You have a fighernacht and so do I. How do
we know? I just told you that it was so. In other words claiming that we
can't have any clue about the image of god, makes the image of god
meaningless gibberish along the lines of a fighernacht, which I just made
up.

You might want to add to your list of things needed, the ability to plan
ahead. See www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1999/PSCF9-99Morton2.html

If man can not plan ahead for consequences of actions, then he can not
understand moral commands given by God. There are tests for an ability to
plan ahead in the anthropological record which I discuss in this oldie but
goodie. But, since most people here don't want humanity to be as old as the
data for planning ahead, they ignore this as well.

I write:
I agree with most of what you said, although there seems to be an issue over what science is able to address. In my previous post I may not have been clear enough that I think the image of God (IOG) is supernatural. The only reason we even know we have it is because the Bible says so. There are various opinions as to how this image is manifested, such as ability to plan ahead as you mention, abstract language (as Jack mentioned), creativity, the ability to think from another person's perspective. These may all indeed be the result of having the IOG, in which case the IOG certainly makes a difference to behavior. But they can also be seen, and are by unbelievers, simply as natural properties of intellect, which is in turn an emergent property of big brains. I accept your assertion that the anthropological record can demonstrate ability to plan ahead. But if you are saying that this is a sign of the IOG, then you seem to be saying that the IOG is empirically detectible. I resp!
 ond to this the same way I respond to 1) ID claims that design is empirically detectible, and 2) athiestic claims that God is not empirically detectible and therefore does not exist. In other words by invoking the impossibility of adequately addressing supernatural claims with natural evidence. In my opinion the IOG is not/can not be empirically detectible.

You wrote:
In other words claiming that we
can't have any clue about the image of god, makes the image of god
meaningless gibberish along the lines of a fighernacht, which I just made
up.

I write:
I disagree. Claiming that we can't have any clue about the image of god (from natural observations), is simply acknowledging that the IOG is supernatural. Does making the same claim about God himself make God meaningless gibberish? And being part German, I resent you saying I have a fighernacht!

BTW I am not relinquishing my status as a fence-sitter. I said that I don't see Glenn's areguments as a problem for a neolithic Adam. But I'm not saying I believe Adam was neolithic. As Glenn and others have pointed out the naturally observable signs of humanity go way back. The evolution, although continuous, was marked by jumps and starts. At some point in that history God decided to give man His image. Exactly when that happened, I don't know and I really don't care.

Brent

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Mar 14 14:43:26 2007