And although I did not care to open the altruism debate again and I am aware there are arguments from Dawkins and others to reconcile this with natural selection, I think a little bit of objectivity is in order.
While the trained scientist may visit a football game and see the star quarterback come over to the sidelines and give his beautiful adoring and onlooking wife and big hug and passionate kiss after winning a big game and technically and accurately observe, “what a marvelous display of random natural selection on the selfish genes of manliness and beauty to ensure the survival of the fittest members of the human species”, most of us non-scientists would just feel a twinge of awe if not jealously in our inner soul and consider this an expression of natural human love and through our non-reductionist lenses would view this as another hallmark of God’s attributes in creation. These emotions may also shared by many weepy parents at the weddings of their offspring as well.
Solomon was the wisest of all but “the way of a man with a maidR21; was in his words, one of “three things that are too amazing for me, four that I do not understand:R21; And like the other wonders of design in creation that the Holy Spirit uses to being people to Christ, this human experience is another that we should affirm to the seeking world and not rob them of the miracle it really is by explaining it away as a merely naturalistic phenomenon.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:32 AM
To: John Walley; 'George Murphy'; 'David Campbell'; mrb22667@kansas.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
Your response is a potential mire with your use of the term "unguided". But we have discussed altruism before on this list before, and it can clearly be selected for via natural selection. Genes that would cause self sacrificial behaviors, especially to family members, and even more so to offspring, would be favored via "random" natural selection.
Jack Syme
----- Original Message -----
From: John Walley
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:56 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
Obviously at the physical and pheromone level this is true, but at the spiritual level of romance and love, and macho male protection and altruistic self sacrifice, this defies non-guided evolution and can possibly qualify as one the “invisible things” that are “clearly seen”.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:41 PM
To: John Walley; 'David Campbell'; mrb22667@kansas.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
In fact pretty girls - & handsome boys - fit in perfectly with evolution through natural selection. Those traits are clearly advantageous, ceteris paribus, for attracting mates & passing on their genes.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Walley" <john_walley@yahoo.com>
To: "'John Walley'" <john_walley@yahoo.com>; "'David Campbell'" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>; <mrb22667@kansas.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
And furthermore, in my opinion pretty girls make a decent rebuttal to C.S.
Lewis's claim that you can't discern whether the God of nature is a loving
God or capricious, ambivalent, etc. I think that beauty in nature,
especially feminine beauty, speaks volumes about our creator. And that is
something that a red in tooth and claw nature can't readily explain either.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John Walley [mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 7:59 PM
To: 'David Campbell'; 'mrb22667@kansas.net'
Cc: 'asa@calvin.edu'
Subject: RE: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
But pretty girls definitely reflect the glory of His Creation and could
therefore loosely fall under the scope of Romans 1:20. :)
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:24 PM
To: mrb22667@kansas.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Romans 1:20 (disregard my last post)
> > Suppose then this person converts to deism still from a purely secular
point
> > of view and then starts exploring all the world's religions to see if
any of
> > their testable truth claims can survive the scrutiny of being compared
to
> > the scientific record. And suppose then that after eliminating all the
> > others they conclude that Christianity is valid and real and the Bible
is
> > inspired, and therefore they become a Christian.
> >
> > In this scenario, can we so confidently say that "that natural theology
does
> > *not* lead a person to Christ" ?
I see a semantic difference here. At the ultimate level, only the
work of the Spirit can lead one to Christ. In this particular
situation, I would identify the examination of various religions as
the means used in leading to Christ, though of course God was working
though his interest in science, etc. As another example, I know of a
couple of testimonies from men who came to Christianity from other
religions. Initial motive for coming to a Christian fellowship group
was that all the pretty girls were there.
--
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 08:36:15 EST