Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

If I might interject...I largely concur with Burgy in
that I see differences in morality, emotions,
rationality, etc. between us and animals in terms of
degree, not kind...by that I mean that fundamentally,
the root of animals' and humans' "intangible"
qualities are the same i.e. they are of the same kind,
and that animals are simply less advanced in these
areas than humans are i.e. they're are differences in
degree.

To your point/question regarding why animals don't
produce great writings, works of art, etc. A couple of
thoughts--one, to remind you of what you yourself
wrote, how do we know what is in an animals' mind? In
truth, our assumptions are nothing more or less than
guesses. Who knows---when a bird sings a song, who
says that there isn't more to it than just attracting
a mate? If apes were biologically capable of writing,
maybe they would write poetry? Since we are not a bird
or an ape, we will never know for sure. I say this,
not because I actually believe that birds and apes are
talking about the meaning of life when they sing a
song or grunt, but only to point out that your
critique goes both ways--we can't assume that they
experience life in the same depth that we do, but then
again, we can't assume they don't. Secondly, as has
been pointed out in other threads, infants and
mentally disabled individuals also cannot write poetry
or talk about the meaning of life or fall in love in
the same way normal adult speak of these things--would
you also say that because of these biological
incapabilities, they also are different in kind, and
not just degree, from other humans?

I think the bottom line difference here between myself
(and Burgy?) and you is our understanding of what it
means to be created in the image of God? As I recall,
it is the same Hebrew word for "breath of life" that
God breathed into both humans and animals--thus, the
ONLY distinction between us and animals is this
"image" and what that means...from my point of view,
this image refers to our ability, like God's, to claim
lordship...God has delegated to us lordship
(stewardship) of creation--we have been tasked by God
within certain parameters, to rule the world and the
creatures in it. We have a functional role in creation
that is different *in kind*, not just *degree* than
animals--both Genesis 1 & 2 testify to this function.
To be equipped for that task, we had to possess a
higher *degree* of advancement in emotional, ethical,
and rational capabilities than other animals do, and
so we evolved in a way that brought these abilities
out from within us--in fact, I'd argue that having
evolved along with and from the rest of God's
creatures, it would be a better guess to assume that
they have the same (potential) innate emotions,
ethical nature, and rational capacities that we do,
than to guess that they don't. It has just been
according to God's plan and purpose that we were
designated for this special function, and equipped
accordingly.

Anyway, I guess that's all for now--you're right
though--fun conversation :)

In Christ,
Christine

--- David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok -- but I thought it was a fun conversation. It'd
> be nice to hear more
> clearly what you're thinking.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM, j burg
> <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > David -- you mis-represent my views. It seems to
> me that this is not
> > yor fault, but mine, for striving tto be clear and
> failing to do so.
> >
> > This thread has gone on long enough.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Burgy
> >
> > On 2/21/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Burgy said: What I seek, and so far the search
> has come up empty, is
> > some
> > > OBJECTIVE attribute of humanity that would
> distinguish this IOG. For
> > > me, this has to be a difference of kind, not a
> difference of degree.
> > >
> > > Why is a capacity for understanding of notions
> of "good" and "evil" not
> > > "objective?" Why is a capacity for producing
> sustained ethical
> > reflection,
> > > ala Aristotle, etc., not "objective?" Why is a
> capacity for producing a
> > > literary tradition on themes of "the good,"
> "justice," and "evil," ala
> > > Shakespeare, etc., not "objective?" If that
> isn't "objective," what is?
> > > How is that fact that elephants have graveyards
> more "objective" than
> > all of
> > > the above? The indicia I've mentioned are not
> only "objective," they're
> > > empirically measurable. Let's produce a chart,
> for example, of the
> > number
> > > of pages elephants have written on the theme of
> "justice" as compared to
> > the
> > > number of pages written by humans.
> > >
> > > As to the distinction between a difference of
> kind vs. a difference of
> > > degree, who says that's a valid distinction?
> Aren't most differences of
> > > "kind" really reducible to differences of
> "degree?" At some point,
> > doesn't
> > > something differ so much in "degree" that it
> also differs in "kind?"
> > And at
> > > what level of being are we making this degree /
> kind distinction?
> > >
> > > Would you argue, for example, that elephants are
> exactly the same "kind"
> > of
> > > organism as mice or spiders or fish or bacteria?
> After all, at least at
> > the
> > > genetic level, the differences between all of
> them are only differences
> > of
> > > degree, and all of them ultimately spring from a
> common ancestor. But
> > the
> > > claim that elephants are the same "kind" of
> organism as bacteria seems
> > > absurd to me.
> > >
> > > Finally, when it comes to the question of "mind"
> / "soul" / "emotion,"
> > on
> > > what basis do you argue that an elephant's
> "emotions" are the same as a
> > > human's except for "degree?" How do you know
> that an elephant's
> > emotional /
> > > mental life is of the same kind as a human's?
> I'd suggest that, just as
> > we
> > > must conceive of the "mind of God" analogically
> based on human
> > experiences,
> > > we can only conceive of the "mind of an
> elephant" analogically. In both
> > > cases, we have no way to experience the "mind"
> of the other. We can
> > draw
> > > analogies, but we have no direct empirical basis
> for making stronger
> > claims.
> > >
> > >
> > > This problem of analogy, in my view, necessarily
> leads us back to some
> > > theological presuppositions. The most basic way
> in which we know we
> > differ
> > > in kind from elephants is because God has
> revealed that fact to us. The
> > > observable evidence, whether you call it
> "degree" or "kind," only
> > confirms
> > > this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 5:04 PM, j burg
> <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2/20/08, David Opderbeck
> <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't know what you mean by "without a
> rationale." Why is 1 Cor.
> > 13's
> > > > > definition of "love" not a rationale? Do
> you really argue that
> > > elephants
> > > > > have notions of "evil" and "truth" that are
> anywhere near as
> > developed
> > > as
> > > > > those humans possess (and Michael, do you
> think your dog has such
> > > notions)?
> > > > > Do you guys really argue that elephants and
> dogs have the sort of
> > > cultural
> > > > > memory that supports notions of "hope" and
> "trust" as those terms
> > are
> > > used
> > > > > by the Apostle Paul?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think a foundational evidence that
> elephants and dogs do not
> > possess
> > > these
> > > > > characteristics in the same kind as humans
> is the fact that there is
> > no
> > > > > Apostle Paul of the elephants and dogs. Nor
> is there an Aristotle,
> > an
> > > > > Augustine, a Shakespeare or a Ghandi of the
> elephants and dogs. Nor
> > is
> > > > > there a Hitler, Stalin or Mao of the
> elphants and dogs; and so on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Elephants and labradors are not robots; they
> have emotions and
> > reactions
> > > > > that we can call "love". But if there is
> any content to theological
> > > > > statements about "love" such as 1 Cor. 13,
> it is a "love" that is
> > > different
> > > > > in kind than the sort of love we humans are
> capable of displaying.
> > > > >
> > > > > And if 1 Cor. 13 isn't enough, I think the
> nail-in-the-coffin
> > > "rationale" is
> > > > > the incarnation and the atonement. Christ
> became a human being, not
> > an
> > > > > elephant or a labrador, and the atonement
> frees us and only us (not
> > > even,
> > > > > apparently, the fallen angels) to experience
> and live the kind of
> > love
> > > > > described in 1. Cor. 13.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me try one more time, since it is clear
> from the above that we are
> > > > talking past one another.
> > > >
> > > > The claim is that humans are made in the
> "image of God." What I wish
> > > > to do is explore what that might mean. I do
> not deny it -- indeed, I
> > > > affirm it. But I seem to be able to defend the
> claim ONLY on
> > > > religious/theological grounds. Much as you do
> in
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 22 13:45:42 2008