RE: [asa] sin or Sin?

Could it be an example of someone tying their theology too tightly (perhaps unwillingly) with evolutionary philosophy? The discontinuousness noted is certainly not consistent with evolutionary gradualism. Yet, as a religious theist, it makes sense to re-define the Darwinian paradigm to suit one's theological tradition. Unfortunately, this has as little relevance for 'practising biologists' as 'non-evolutionary sociology' does. Physics is not nearly as seexxy today as biology is (biotech, bioliberalism, bioprospecting, etc.)!
   
  Doesn't 'evolutionary history' sometimes just mean 'evolutionary evolution'? Historicism's gravest example. Popper would likely have a word to say about the 'origins' of sin or Sin here.
   
  For theology-physics (to the exclusion of important others), indeed, some things simply must be an 'afterthought.'
   
  Arago

  
"Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
  One is advocating here some sort of discontinuous transition in early man, from brute to moral man. Knowledge of God and His laws transformed the brute into moral man. Was that a slow transition or an abrupt one? It is hard to understand the afterthought on the part of God to make Himself and His laws known to man so "late" in his life. It seems that we are substituting the "instant" biblical creation of man from the dust with knowledge of God and His laws by the evolutionary history of man with God imposing knowledge of Him as an afterthought.

Moorad

       
 
              
---------------------------------
    
       
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 20 14:36:47 2008