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

David Opderbeck wrote:
> What scripture? Where does scripture suggest that the imago dei has
> anything to do with eternal souls? Where in Psalm 8, for example,
> does the eternal soul fit into the uniqueness of humanity?
I'm not sure it does --or as you suggest, I'm willing to accept that
Scripture never equates those two explicitly, although, now that you
mention it that is yet another thing traditionally trotted out as a
possible meaning for "image of God". I think Scriptures do support that
we are, of all the creatures of earth, uniquely created in the image of
God. (We all agree on that, right?) And separately, the case can also
be made that we do have souls (whether immortal or not may be debatable)
that do / can live on after the body dies. While I accept these
propositions separately, I don't think I've ever defended that they are
tied together accept through our speculation. But our quibbling
(which I continue below) seems more centered on "intelligence". Was
anybody suggesting that this is what "image of God" means? If so I
should like to know which Scriptures support that.
> Re: the echolocation test: fine, throw me in the water. Just do it
> near a nuclear submarine with a sonar operator on board. And while
> we're at it, let's make the test involve targeting a small projectile
> moving at least twenty miles an hour faster than any dolphin can swim.
>
> Then, after that, let's add using our echolocation / sonar equipment
> to see through flesh in order to observe the heartbeat of a growing
> infant in the womb.
>
> Waiting. Still waiting......
>
> This is another difference in kind between humans and animals -- we
> can extend our abilities and senses using technology in ways that
> animals cannot. (Yes, I know many animals use tools, but please --
> using a rock and a twig to open termite mounds differs in kind from a
> nuclear submarine. And if that's only a matter of "degree," then the
> degree / kind distinction is so broad as to be meaningless).
>
> As to John's "ecocentrism" -- oh, brother. Let's do a Maypole
> dance with Gaia while we're at it. Human beings are unique. We alone
> among the creatures of the earth have the image of God. That's not
> "ecocentrism," it's Christian theology. Equating humans with animals
> except in degree is "scientism," which we're all supposed to be against.
And we are. Or at least I am. I just don't think the case is as
obvious to make apart from Scripture. But regarding our relative
intelligence, we can't even devise intelligence tests that everybody
deems fair within our own species let alone beyond. Does Scripture
speak to this? And apart from Scripture, to pit our obviously greater
possession of toys & tech. against the dearth of the same in the hands
of other species is to beg the question of whether tools represent
intelligence in the first place. Some other "universal standard" might
just easily have an intelligence scale that says the more tools a
species is forced to use, the less intelligent they must be. Maybe
nuclear submarines & such is just us brandishing our "flash in the pan"
idiocy before the patient cosmos. Please don't take this too
seriously (just in case you are.) I don't really think humans are
un-intelligent. But I wouldn't make the case for our intelligence on
anything but Scripture --and anyway I'm not so sure it has anything to
do with "image of God" either. I do like Job 28, (a real tribute to
science). And then the closing chapters of Job restore us to a sober
perspective again --and a counterbalance to the sentiments of the later
verses of Psalm 8; and we are reminded that we really aren't in charge
as much as we like to think; even here on earth.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 24 17:45:25 2008