RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

I agree. As animals morph into human, we become aware of God, and aware of sin. It was very gradual over time- not unique with one man in one place. Evolution works in populations over vast time. We have the animal nature to overcome.

I like CS Lewis' analogy of evolution in this case. The next stage of evolution after creating man was to get the Holy Spirit installed into man, and thus, the power/possibility to actually overcome sin. CS Lewis writes this in "Mere Christianity" in the last chapter of the book... and I find that fascinating and insightful.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 9:27 AM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)

Isn't sin the knowingly violation of God's rules? Once humans became
aware of God's existence, they had no reason not to follow his
commandments

sin is a transgression of law (1 John 3:4)

From Rom.2:12-15

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things
of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their
conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or
else defending them,

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Moorad-
>
> I think with evolution there is no such thing as a "first man" since all species blur in the grey zone. There is no such thing as a line between human and non-human... it happened very gradually. Nevertheless, here we find ourselves as sinful humans made in the image of God. Animals don't sin (even if bears and tigers do kill each other simply for territory, rape, etc.).
>
> As Denis Lamoureux says, Scripture reveals ancient science and history. If you want to accept it literally, you need to believe that the Earth is flat, as all those thought at the time Genesis was written. But if the point of Scripture is not to teach history or science, then maybe it is good for theology. Sinners need a savior- the theme of the Bible.
>
> The problem is trying to fit modern science into ancient science... it can't be done and won't be done. Better to accept it for what it is.
>
> Some ask me why I'm still a Christian if I can't take the Bible literally and inerrantly. My answer... there's no better "belief system," including atheism.
>
> More on human evolution:
> Lemoureux's example is the baby. When a baby is made, it gradually unfolds. God does not paste on ears, nose, eyes, etc. One may ask, when does the ear appear? Is there a time when there is no ear, then an ear? It is a blur... same with evolution of man from an ape-like creature. (I asked "when does the ear appear" but in Lemoureux's example he asks "when is it a baby",,, just wanted to be clear on that.)
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:26 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)
>
> I believe that God did set up the laws and the initial conditions of the physical universe. It may be, as you say, that evolution is part of that set-up. However, was there an original creation that "fell" and is now governed by the laws that we actually observe? This helps me reconcile such observations with Scripture.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Wed 8/6/2008 7:29 PM
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)
>
>
>
> Here's an example I gave as a comment in the Friday ASA workshop on origins.
>
> I work at a computer company. We design computer chips. We have a software program that can take a design specification as input, and automatically generate layout. The computer generates layout due to an algorithm designed by humans. Was the output design created naturally? Yes, as opposed to supernaturally. Was there a designer behind this? Not behind this specific layout design, but a designer did design the algorithm to handle this layout design and many others. (Side-note: Interestingly, the auto-layout generators use random seeds as part of their design algorithm.)
>
> Evolution is like the automated program. God created the evolution process just as humans created this automated algorithm. Just as evolution can create something without outside influence (human intervention), evolution can also create without God's intervention... and apparently it has, judging by all the junk and copy mistakes in DNA (pseudogenes).
>
> The messed-up DNA is not a result of sin from Adam, but a result of the design process that God used. And God's process of evolution is brilliant-- if anyone thinks otherwise, try thinking of an alternative, other than punting and resorting to fiat.
>
> I think seeing the brilliance in God's design will prevent one from being sidetracked with other trivial nonsense, such as seeing a "Bible code" or arguing about which verse is at the center of the Bible. (Don't get upset by these words- I'm just having some fun, being blunt and opinionated!)
>
> Gregory- I hope I'm clear, in no way does God = evolution, and the words are not interchangeable at all. That was a huge and major mistake trying to replace one with the other in sentences. Evolution is a means/process/system of design. Just like plants growing as a result of photosynthesis and that doesn't disregard God as Maker and Sustainer in any way.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexanian, Moorad [mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 8:41 AM
> To: j burg
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)
>
> Here is what Arthur Peacocke wrote, "I find the epic of evolution, from the 'Hot Big Bang' to Homo sapiens, an illumination of how the Creator God is and has been creating. Evolution enriches our insights into the nature and purposes of the divine creation -- its fecundity, variety, its ability to manifest an increase in complexity to the point where the physical stuff of the world acquires the (holistic) capacity to be self-conscious, to think (in 'mental' activity), to instantiate values and to relate to its Creator (in 'spiritual' activity). I regard God as creating in, with, and through the natural as unveiled by the sciences; hence I espouse a 'theistic naturalism.'" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/statement_03.html
>
>
>
> Is that not equating evolution as an agency to God?
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: j burg [mailto:hossradbourne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Fri 8/1/2008 10:41 AM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] The Science = Atheism Meme (evolving society, for Gregory)
>
>
>
> On 7/31/08, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>> I am going to say something right off the top of my head. I
>> will take you post and just make some minor changes and it makes just as
>> make sense, if not even more, than what you wrote.
>> -------------------
>>
>> You know, God (evolution) doesn't just create good things. He (It) creates
>> even more mutants, retards, etc. than He (it) does something better. So an
>> example of something going downward (in behavior, thought, etc.) doesn't
>> disprove the actions of God (evolution) in society.
>>
>
> I see where you are coming from. The above assumes "evolution" refers
> to an agency, rather than a descriptor.
>
> Let me try this one. Substitute "gravity"
>
>> You know, gravity doesn't just create good things. Gravity creates
>> even more acccidents, deaths, etc. than it does something better. So an
>> example of something going downward doesn't
>> disprove the actions of gravity in our everyday life.
>
> Here I am using the word "gravity" as an agent.
>
> So much of the dialog on this list seems to center on word
> definitions. I think Bacon was the guy who once wrote that when two
> learned people disagree, it is almost always over word definitions!
>
> "Gravity" is, of course, not an agent; it is (apparently) just the
> result of living in a universe where mass attracts mass. Which in turn
> is the result of living in a curved universe. Which in turn ... .
>
> jb
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Received on Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:40:45 -0700