Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Basically one more vote against all three assertions. We do need to
think through theology in light of evolution (not that evolution
dictates what theology should do, but rather we need to examine the
two, see if any problems arise, and address them). However, none of
the claims are inherent in evolution. There are challenges in fitting
Adam and Eve into an evolutionary scenario, but numerous different
ways have been found (with strengths and weaknesses). Evolution
doesn't rule out a fall in any way, though it may pose some difficulty
for the popular Western idea of Adam and Eve as having already been at
the acme of humanity. Evolution provides a link between humans and
other animals, but this need not imply anything about the imago dei.

Consider the following scenario:

Hominids evolve to a point of high mental capacities.
God endows two of them with a spiritual nature (could be a
front-loaded emegent property, an intervention-style insertion, etc.),
minimally including the ability to understand obedience versus
disobedience.
They disobey.
Spiritual consequences affect the rest of us, whether all being
physically descended from them or not.

This is consistent with biological evolution and inconsistent with all
three assertions (except possibly if Adam and Eve are placed early
enough to have more than one hominid species in view, then there would
be a few species rather than just one, but a clear demarcation (not
necessarily easy to pin down in the fossil record but easy enough to
apply to living taxa and non-hominids) between those in and those
out.)

Biological evolution indicates that our physical bodies have their
origins in change through mutation, etc. from apes. There is thus a
link between us and other organisms, but it doesn't eliminate the fact
that we are also quite distinctive in other ways. Even physically,
we're quite unusual-tailless running bipeds.

Population genetics suggests that humans have more than a single pair
for ancestors going well back into the past, though realistic error
bars probably prevent pinning down details. On the other hand,
intersecting genealogies mean that everyone shares ancestors if you go
back several thousand years. It can't tell us anything about models
with Adam and Eve as a representative pair or multiple representative
pairs.

Biology can't directly tell us anything about fallenness-we need some
philosophical guidance as to what's good or bad, and then we can
assess the patterns described by biology. Several evolutionary
impulses tend to promote selfishness, making a fall likely or even
inevitable, though as a rule they could in principle also be directed
in morally good directions, and any of them could in principle be
rejected by an organism capable of choosing how it will behave.

-- 
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.