RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Agreed. We have to integrate all the issues of science into a rational and
believable Christian worldview that is appealing to seekers and skeptics.
This is the Great Commission we have been called to.

Rejecting a relevant, rational integrated Christian worldview of science and
faith is the opposite extreme and is as bad as rejecting all of science
altogether like YECism. Deep down inside every atheist is a Christian
trying to get out, and we need to help them.

People want to be intellectually fulfilled in their Christian faith, not
live in denial of science or in a theological bubble detached from reality
and the observable facts of the natural world.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:31 PM
To: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Hi George, you wrote:

>People start with themes like "In search of the historical Adam" or "Who
was Adam?" instead of viewing matters in light of what the NT says about
Christ.<

Simply in terms of what is important and what isn't, accepting Christ ranks
at the top without question. Whether there was an Adam or wasn't, or where
and when he may have lived if there was such a fellow, for a believer, may
be a matter of mere curiosity. So why stir the pot?

For one thing, truth matters. For another, there are untold millions of
nonbelievers who feel they needn't bother with a book at all that starts
with an unbelievable fairy tale. And for those who believe the Bible is
supposed to be a reliable witness, the Bible can indeed be such witness if
the first passages of the first book are shown to be reliable.

Why do millions fall for YEC when we, the intelligentsia, know with absolute
certainty it can't possibly be true? It is because they believe the Bible
is true and this is the only way it can be interpreted. An historical Adam
in the context of human history they can believe in may persuade some to
escape the clutches of the evil YECmeisters.

So I for one believe that lining up all the evidence both that which
confirms the New Testament and that which confirms the Old Testament in the
long run can have positive benefits. There are many road blocks in the way
of potential believers. Genesis 1-11 can be one giant boulder in the middle
of the narrow road leading to Christ. This is not to say there aren't
others as well. But this is one I think can be removed, and why shouldn't
we spend effort to remove it if we can?

Dick Fischer

Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association

Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:44 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

One execllent theological reason to prefer a fully evolutionary view in
which H. sapiens - & thus Jesus - really is related to chimps & other
species is that this provides a way of understanding the biblical promises
that "all things" are saved, reconciled to God &c through the Incarnation.
I set out this argument a long time ago in a PSCF (then JASA) article
available at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/JASA3-86Murphy.html .

A major failure in many of these discussions is the failure to approach the
issues christologically. The usual Evangelical approach is, if I can coin a
term, adamological.

This is almost exactly 180 degrees wrong. People start with themes like "In
search of the historical Adam" or "Who was Adam?" instead of viewing matters
in light of what the NT says about Christ.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----

From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>

To: David Campbell <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com>

Cc: asa@calvin.edu

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 3:31 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are
overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Aside from the various other ways in which this particular question is
causing me angst right now, here is something else that bothers me about it.
It seems to me that this question presents a particularly thorny issue for
how and to what extent "science" may be used to intepret scripture vs. how
and to what extent we need to assert scripture over against a particular
scientific data point.

When we consider the age of the earth / universe and the creation "days," it
seems to me that it is easier to be flexible. There are any number of
exegetical questions before we even get to the scientific ones. Moreover,
messing with the age of the earth / universe involves basic physical
constants like the speed of light that can't really be messed with under the
anthropic principle. Finally, the theological issues seem somewhat less
thorny -- though the question of death before the fall is not a small one.

When we consider the exegetical issues concerning Adam, IMHO at least, there
seems to be significantly less flexibility, at least within even a moderate
"inerrancy" framework. IMHO, without disrespect to those who think
otherwise, it does too much damage to the doctrine of scripture and to the
narrative framework of scripture to suggest that the accommodation principle
-- which I think is a valid principle generally -- goes so far as to render
these texts essentially non-historical. So for me, this seems to be a place
in which it might be appropriate to say that, while scripture does not teach
"science," it does to some extent bear on "history," such that it might be
appropriate to question the naturalistic assumptions underlying particular
scientific models.

In particular, it seems to me that the genetic continuity between humans and
our presumed chimp ancestors, and population gentics studies based on
presumed times of divergence and rates of mutation, do not render the
traditional understanding of Adam impossible. They render it difficult, and
perhaps unlikely, but not impossible. It is possible that God specially and
miraculously created Adam using pre-existing hominid genes; and it is
possible that God caused imago Dei man to be dispersed geographically in
such a way that the histocompatibility diversity we observe today happened
faster than the models assumed. This does not violate any fundamental
physical constant such as the speed of light. It is a different kind, or at
least a different degree, of question than the age of the earth.

At the same time, we can tentatively propose some other scenarios. But in
my view, it's unfair to equate some push-back here with "YEC thinking."
Perhaps, like the wine at Cana, this really is a place at which
methodologial naturalism, without the illumination of scripture, does not
really reflect the truth of history.

On Nov 12, 2007 3:03 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, evolution does not absolutely rule out a single couple as
ancestral to humanity. Glenn Morton's model develops this line of
thinking. It posits some rather long gaps in the genealogies and has
other difficulties, but then there are difficulties in any approach to
reconciling the scientific data and Genesis 1-11. It is much easier
to have rapid change in a small population. Any particular mutation
important to making humans human would have its origin in a single
individual. Many other variant scenarios with some sort of historical
Adam are also possible.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
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.