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

I favor both your view and a more literal view, too. Evolution works today
and in the past. It is a wonderful methodology for creative works. After
enumerable environmental circumstance, life on certain rare planets might
develop to a point where one, or more, species reaches a level God could
declare to be in His image. Where self-sacrifice, love, advanced social
interaction, tool making, etc. are evident in species. Of course, I am
referring to 6th day mankind. God, via His evolutionary method with or
without any intervention, has earned the credit as being their maker. Both
male and female, as was mentioned in chapter 1, would be noted by our
special observer.

At this point, any advanced entity could come along and use their DNA
pattern to make the next level of person (ie "a living soul") function
easily within this physical environment. Perhaps the main purpose of
evolution on any planet may be to have a few rare spots in the universe
where companionship with God from His works becomes viable to Him.

Thus, Adam could have been specially made, which would explain many other
things, which I won't list for brevity's sake.

Bernie, I like your software analogy. The Big Bang Theory also reveals an
evolutionary-like methodology since the paramaters are so highly tweaked,
and stellar and galactic morphologies are becoming more and more observed
and understood.

What I find amazing is the possibility that the ancient view may very well
be a reasonable description of what would have been seen if we could go back
in time to view the Earth and Sun's formation process. The Earth was indeed
without form and void, that's the best model going for planetary
development. They form within a gigantic, swirling accretion disk that
would appear watery blue to an observer even with normal vision since
stellar neighbors could easily be very close and very bright. [There is
evidence that such is the case due to Rayleigh scattering.]

If we allow an observer to be taken from his normal time on six different
days, say from Mt. Sinai, then even the six 24-hour day is a comfortable
fit.

Frankly, I am surprised that this view is not taken seriously. Especially
since we are often repeating ourselves on this huge topic regarding Genesis.
Here and there in this email forum, I've tried to ease in my conjecture
(M-Genesis), but I've had little response. Nevertheless, one NT lesson
introduced me to a great word -- importunity. :) [Luke 11:8] Won't some of
you grant me a few loaves? Harsh criticism is fine with me, but any word
salad will become tossed salad. I am speaking of a literal view that is
concordant with science. Real scientists with theologians need to step in
and kick this idea around.

George Cooper "Coope"

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:41 AM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: 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.

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 13:55:51 -0500