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

If Adam is the first human being with a "living soul", then evolution is
afforded the freedom it needs to be a viable theory. Even mitochondrial DNA
does not preclude Eve from her existence since Cain would necessarily have
married a pre-Adamite; eliminating the dance around incest with a younger
sister.

"Coope" [Shill for M-Genesis] J

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of drsyme@cablespeed.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:40 AM
To: '' karl . w . giberson @ enc . edu ''; drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: ' '' ASA list ''; '@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?

Let me add my 2 cents to the original three questions. From an evolutionary
perspective, I think the greatest challenge to current evangelical doctrine
is that of inerrency. The problem with common descent is it eliminates Adam
as the first human being. This then leads to difficulty with original sin,
and the fall, but these difficulties are not insurmountable regarding
maintaining traditional doctrine of the fall etc. However, it does make a
historical Adam as the father of all impossible, and since Paul seems to
believe this, the most difficult issue I have yet to reconcile is the idea
that Paul got this idea wrong.

On Tue Jun 10 9:57 , sent:

Dualism is not considered a valid option anymore by whom? I understand that
many are arguing against dualism, but the matter is far from settled.
Lets just say that a lot of what you are saying in the article and on this
list is based on the assumption that materialism is true, an assumption that
I have not been at all conviced of yet.

Sin, like imago dei, could be completely spiritual entities, which I agree
allows for a lot of "interesting things" theologically.

However, do animals sin? Did all hominids sin? I think the fall was a
change of our relationship with God, and a subsequent failing in our ability
to be stewards for God's creation. Even though our behavior that evolved
and is genetically determined, was at the root of it, it did not become sin
until we were placed in a position of accountability. This does not
necessarily require a dualist position, although personally I think dualism
is what the bible teaches.

On Tue Jun 10 8:17 , "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu" sent:

In rereading the posts, I sense that some participants are dualists.
To speak of something "immaterial" that God installed in a physical
creature is to be a dualist. If we allow dualism, we can do all kinds
of interesting things theologically. Unfortunately dualism is not
considered a viable option any more so we are stuck with having to
take seriously that "sin" is coded in our genes and has an actual
physical aspect.

2008/6/10 karl.w.giberson@enc.edu <gibersok@gmail.com>:
> I am uncomfortable with the statement "Sin is a theological concept &
> has to do first with our relationship with God" if it detaches sin
> from our human nature and turns it into something "non-empirical."
> This seems dualistic to me. I think human rejection of God is
> motivated by our human natures, which evolved to be selfish. We can
> bring mystery on board and say things like "The crucial question,
> however, is
>> how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God and
>> God's will," but, if we take this route, we will find it hard to make
much use of what we know from science.
>
> Do I understand you to be saying that sin is only an issue in our
> relation to God, and not to the creation?
>
> 2008/6/10 George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>:
>> For a start (& certainly not he most important point here), Chesterton &
>> others who say that the doctrine of original sin has empirical proof are
>> wrong. Sin is a theological concept & has to do first with our
relationship
>> with God. We know empirically that people do lots of nasty things, but
>> whether or not we fear, love & trust in the true God above all things
isn't
>> something that can be determined quite so easily. The genetic &
behavioral
>> background of early humans indeed hadcomponents tending them toward
>> violence, sexual promiscuity & deceit. The crucial question, however, is
>> how they responded when they were given (somehow) an awareness of God and
>> God's will.
>>
>> Then yes, we are deeply & profoundly sinful. That's why Augustine was
right
>> & Pelagius wrong, quite apart from questions about why, how or when that
>> sinful condition originated. But sin is not essential to who we are as
>> creatures of God. That's why Article I of the Formula of Concord, while
it
>> emphatically rejects anything smelling of Pelagianiam, also rejected the
>> view of Flacius that sin was of the essence of fallen humanity. & part of
>> making that distinction is to say that human sinfulness had a beginning,
>> that the first humans (& how widely spread a group that is in space &
time
>> is unknown) who had some awareness of God's will for them, chose to go in
>> another direction.
>>
>> Genesis 3 is, as is often said, the story of every person. But we can't
>> ignore the canonical structure of scripture which places that story at
the
>> very beginning. Since it is the story of every person it is the story of
>> the first persons.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "karl.w.giberson@enc.edu"
>> <gibersok@gmail.com>
>> To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>; "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>;
"Stephen
>> Matheson" <smatheso@calvin.edu>; "Steve Martin"
>> <steven.dale.martin@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Saving Darwin: What theological changes are required?
>>
>>
>>> David:
>>>
>>> You have framed the question in a very clear and helpful way. My
>>> thinking on this is as follows: all the evidence suggests that our
>>> species and its predecessors shared a steadily evolving gene pool.
>>> This gene pool contained the raw material out of which our physical,
>>> mental and even spiritual natures arise. It is hard to even imagine
>>> what it would mean for God to choose an "agent" and then do something
>>> with this agent that would then spread to all subsequent offspring.
>>> What would happen, for example, to the contemporaries of this agent?
>>> This is not what a literal reading of Genesis suggests and it doesn't
>>> fit naturally into the scientific picture, so what do we have to
>>> commend it? It seems to me that the "Fall" can be understood as that
>>> part of our human natures that evolved to exhibit a pathological
>>> selfishness. As G. K. Chesterton observed, this is the only Christian
>>> doctrine with rigorous empirical proof!
>>>
>>> I don't see the problem with our sinful natures emerging slowly,
>>> through time, rather than suddenly, as suggested in the biblical
>>> story. The reality of our sinful natures is a deep theological insight
>>> and one that we should appreciate. There were times in history-think
>>> Rousseau and Marx-when philosophers dismissed the idea of "natural"
>>> sinfulness and ridiculed the biblical insight. But nobody would do
>>> that now. We now understand, as the author of Genesis and the apostle
>>> Paul both did, that we are deeply and profoundly sinful. I see no
>>> reason to insist that the fall be anything more than an affirmation
>>> that this is indeed a true picture of the human condition. (It is
>>> also the reason why "second work of grace" theology always struck me
>>> as suspect, although I am, to a first approximation, a Wesleyan.)
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
> www.karlgiberson.com
> Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
> Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
> Phone: 781-801-2189
> Fax: 617-847-5933
>
> "A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
> jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
>

-- 
Karl Giberson, Ph.D,
www.karlgiberson.com
Professor of Physics, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy, MA
Director of the Forum on Faith & Science, Gordon College, Wenham, MA.
Phone: 781-801-2189
Fax: 617-847-5933
"A person without a sense of humor is like a wagon without springs --
jolted by every pebble in the road." Henry Ward Beecher
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. 
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.