RE: [asa] M-Genesis

Hi George,

With respect to your second question, I remember reading a very interesting PSCF article on the topic from the archives; it's located here: http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2006/PSCF12-06Arnold.pdf.

In Christ,
Christine (ASA member)

"For we walk by faith, not by sight" ~II Corinthians 5:7

Help save the life of a homeless animal--visit www.azrescue.org to find out how.

Recycling a single aluminum can conserves enough energy to power your TV for 3 hours--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! Learn more at www.cleanup.org

--- On Wed, 8/20/08, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 10:50 AM
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> The Adamic terminology seems to apply only to a first human
> approach and
> contrary to scientific arguments for evolution. So, I
> suppose, using the
> term "Adamic view" would be confusing and
> conflicting. This is because
> M-Genesis recognizes homo sapiens existence prior to Adam
> (allowing
> evolution its elbow room) and sees a literal Adam that came
> later as
> declared in chapter 2 (made from "dust" and given
> something extremely
> important - a living soul). Is there a nice name for this
> view?
>
>
>
> A bit off topic, but someone here recently said that
> anthropology has more
> atheist than many other fields. Is this true? My daughter
> is on her way to
> college and is finally decided to get a degree in
> anthropology, so I am
> curious about what she might encounter with other students.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Coope"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:56 PM
> To: George Cooper; asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
>
>
>
>
> One way to approach the topic that does not dodge the
> question of
> 'literal/real' Adam and Eve is to apply the
> qualifier 'Adamic' to the
> human-social sciences. Thus, one has an Adamic
> anthropology, an Adamic
> sociology, an Adamic psychology, etc. The 'first
> man' ideology (which could
> be a reality) is after all embraced by no less than four
> world religions,
> showing it is not limited to evangelical Christianity.
>
>
>
> G.A.
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/16/08, Dehler, Bernie
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
> To: "George Cooper"
> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>,
> "asa@calvin.edu"
> <asa@calvin.edu>
> Received: Saturday, August 16, 2008, 4:18 AM
>
> George Cooper said:
> "Agreed, but M-Genesis only applies this to the
> pre-Adamites, which evolved
> and were seen on the 6th day that Moses was taken back to
> another huge
> highlight of Earth's history. "
>
>
>
> No- I think Genesis talks about the "first man,"
> the first human, and his
> name is Adam. If you don't think that it is Adam
> mentioned in Gen. 1, then
> Gen. 2 makes it clear it is Adam, I think.
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Cooper
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:36 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
>
>
>
> [Sorry for the delay, I've been out of state.]
>
> Bernie said: I think there's the big picture: we can be
> sure (beyond a
> reasonable doubt) that biological evolution happened (from
> apelike creature
> to human) because of the DNA evidence (pseudogenes and
> fused human
> chromosome #2).
>
> Yes, there is substantial evidence that has caused me to
> accept a physical
> nature for man having emerged from an amazingly natural
> process that is both
> terrible and beautiful. Darwin was right. This view is
> compatible with
> M-Genesis since the observer simply gave us an account of
> only the outcome
> of these processes at important points along the way.
>
> Once again, allow me to mention a few that demonstrate that
> such an
> eye-witness style approach to Gen. 1 makes sense:
>
> 1) A view of the Earth when it was "without form and
> void". [When our
> protosun accretion disk developed a gravitational knot that
> would have
> allowed the void formed for our protoplanet to be described
> as stated. The
> first observational evidence of an apparent protoplanetary
> void came earlier
> this year. It is no longer wild supposition, though it is
> a bit early to
> claim it as hard fact.]
>
> This disk would have appeared within the background of dark
> space where
> "darkness was on the face of the deep".
>
> 2) The protosun disk would have appeared as
> "waters" due to intense
> illumination from its more massive, earlier-formed, bright
> stellar nursery
> neighbors. [Fe-60 in meteorites is but one piece of
> evidence found to favor
> such nurseries (now observed by the score in number). As
> for a the blueness
> necessary to cause an uneducated observer to describe this
> vast disk as
> "waters", evidence now exists that some disks
> will appear blue. A prominent
> astronomer and expert in dust analysis has pointed out to
> me that some of
> the edge-on accretion disks are quite red. This suggests
> Rayeleigh
> scattering is applicable, which means the face of the disk
> will appear more
> blue than otherwise. Our blue sky is one powerful example
> of this
> scattering effect.]
>
> 3) "Let there be light". An enshrouded protostar
> does not remain shrouded
> for very long. Of course, they can be very bright once the
> shroud breaks.
> Interestingly, this light was called "Day" by
> God, and our "day" comes only
> from Sun light. This began the energy delivery to the
> Solar system that
> would eventually bring forth little companions for the our
> Creator and
> designer of these processes. It was a "good"
> moment, indeed.
>
>
>
> This gets us through only the first verse, but I hope the
> essence of
> M-Genesis can be seen by any readers here as to its
> approach.
>
> Bernie said: Accepting evolution for apelike creature to
> man is a watershed
> event. Once a Christian accepts the evidence for human
> evolution, and
> believes in God, the logical conclusion is that God used
> evolution as his
> means for design (contrary to a YEC or OEC interpretation
> of the Bible).
>
> Agreed, but M-Genesis only applies this to the
> pre-Adamites, which evolved
> and were seen on the 6th day that Moses was taken back to
> another huge
> highlight of Earth's history. Thus, the literal view
> of M-Genesis is not in
> conflict with Genesis 1 and 2. This should be a huge
> attraction to both YEC
> and OEC proponents. If the account of Genesis was that of
> an eye-witness
> then there is no reason not to give a literal view the
> primary emphasis,
> though we can not rule out all literary devices that might
> lead to other
> views.
>
> Genesis 2, taken literally, states that a living soul was
> given to Adam who
> was specially made, breathed spiritual life into by God
> Himself (who is
> Spirit), removed from the fabrication area and placed into
> a specially made
> Garden that was located in a special location (high in the
> mountains and
> away from the humanoids below, where future wives and
> husbands hunted and
> gathered), who was given the task of doing special things
> like naming
> animals, and was allowed to make the first spiritual
> mistake of eternal
> consequence (ie sin).
>
> Of course, M-Genesis is a religious "theory" and
> is not remotely testable
> within the purview of science. It is a view that takes
> what science now
> demonstrates as likely and compares it to scripture.
> Surprisingly,
> M-Genesis sees a strong case for concordance between
> scripture and science.
> This statement alone should ring Church bells for some, and
> sirens for
> others. J
>
> Although M-Genesis is not a scientific theory, it does make
> scientific
> predictions:
>
> 1) Some accretion disks will appear watery blue.
>
> 2) Enshrouded stars may burst forth light (though
> God's intervention
> may make for sense instead based on the statement that the
> Spirit moved over
> the face of the waters just prior to the event of light
> coming forth.)
>
> 3) Protoplanets may appear to form in void-like areas
> within the
> protoplanetary disks (proplyds).
>
> [These predictions came prior to the last year's
> astronomical discoveries,
> btw.]
>
> Big Bang Theory, since it's been mentioned, is not a
> requirement to
> M-Genesis, but it supports what we see in the first phase
> of Biblical
> creation: proplyds with protoplanetary void regions.
>
> "Coope"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 9:44 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] M-Genesis
>
> A few problems with the logic here. First of all evolution
> does not
>
> depend on the validity of the Big Bang, although there is
> significant
>
> supporting evidence for this concept. I am not sure what
> alternatives
>
> there exist to 'science' in between. And finally,
> evolution... Well,
>
> it seems straightforward from the vast amounts of evidences
> that
>
> evolution did happen. It's all about the evidence
> really.
>
> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Alexanian, Moorad
> <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > If one supposes the Big Bang, the fact that we are now
> discussing issues,
> and nothing but "science" happened in-between,
> then "evolution" did happen.
> Of course, these are big ifs. However, if all the terms
> used are properly
> defined, then the real discussion is all about these
> supposed ifs.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Moorad
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dehler,
> Bernie
>
> > Sent: Sun 8/10/2008 1:29 AM
>
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
>
> > Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Gregory Arago said:
>
> > "Now, even if a small minority of voices would
> claim that 'God creates
> using evolution' or 'evolution is God's
> method,' doesn't do (hasn't seemed
> to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the
> field of biology
> that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no
> purpose in
> biological change-over-time."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
> mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Gregory
> Arago
>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 9:54 PM
>
> > To: asa@calvin.edu ; George Cooper
>
> > Subject: Re: [asa] M-Genesis
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Howdy George,
>
> >
>
> > Are you a cosmologist? I haven't met many actual
> (practising)
> cosmologists, but many people who are interested in
> cosmology, mostly as
> amateurs. Actually, I read somewhere recently that
> cosmology is all but lost
> in today's Academy, that most people are taught little
> about it. A bit sad
> if it would be true.
>
> >
>
> > Just to clarify once again my position, I am against
> biology-centrism and
> elevating the meaning of biology too high for society's
> own good. Hopefully
> you can understand the reason for feeling this way, which
> are easier to
> understand if you've followed the story of
> socio-biology and now
> evolutionary psychology as 'academic' disciplines.
> The term 'mutations,'
> though you freely apply it to cosmology ('supernova
> blasts'), I should
> express to you great hesitation in using it about human
> beings and changes
> in things not part of 'natural sciences.'
>
> >
>
> > A couple of questions: By 'advance' or
> 'advanced' do you imply 'better'?
> You use the words 'for the good,' without
> mentioning how this value-term may
> be defined. For me, each star being "different than
> another" is hardly
> evidence for 'the good.' Are you using
> 'advanced change' in cosmology to
> mean that 'the universe' is somehow 'getting
> better'? You didn't use the
> words 'simple' or 'complex' or
> 'heterogeneous' and 'homogeneous' (the
> latter
> representing Spencerian evolution, rather than Darwinian),
> but perhaps that
> is behind your cosmological evaluation of 'the
> good'?
>
> >
>
> > We quite probably see the subjective/objective
> dichotomy differently.
> Bringing Rene Descartes into play seems worthwhile in a
> discourse commonly
> dominated by reference to Sir Charles Darwin. Do you view
> natural philosophy
> as relevant to this conversation, given that what is today
> called 'science'
> was once considered as 'natural philosophy'? Some
> people consider Aristotle
> an 'evolutionist,' yet there are many features of
> Aristotelian thought that
> are inconsistent with 'evolutionism.' Philosophy is
> lively important here as
> a bridge-crossing activity.
>
> >
>
> > You write: "I am using evolution as a general
> term for advanced change,
> and not restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it is a
> wonderful and
> natural process that was planned from the beginning."
>
> >
>
> > On what basis do you justify stretching the meaning of
> 'evolution' in this
> way? Why do you 'transfer' the concept
> 'evolution' outside of biology? Why
> not restrict 'evolution' to biology or to
> 'natural' things only? This would
> perhaps help to protect from the penetration of ideology
> into your
> 'science.' Again, just as it was with Iain
> Strachan, I don't mean this to
> accuse you of 'ideological science' simply because
> you accept certain
> aspects of evolutionary theories. It is a simple thing to
> do to distance
> oneself from ideology, by openly rejecting those aspects of
> Darwin's theory
> or of any other type of evolutionary theory that are not
> scientific, not
> theological, but rather ideological. I wonder why theistic
> evolutionists and
> evolutionary creationists seem hesitant to do so - but
> since I live outside
> of the American milieu, perhaps it is because people
> don't want to be
> misquoted or called a 'creationist' just by
> rejecting anything
> 'evolutionary,' even the quite obvious 'evo
>
>
>
> l!
>
> >
>
> > utionary ideology.'
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps you have seen arguments that
> 'evolution' is not synonymous with
> 'change'. For most biologists, as far as my
> understanding of the community
> of scientists who are called (who call themselves)
> 'biologists,' there
> simply isn't any change 'planned from the
> beginning.' This is simply a fact
> of the field's held views. Yet you say 'Yes, there
> is a plan' as if it could
> have some authority.
>
> >
>
> > Now, even if a small minority of voices would claim
> that 'God creates
> using evolution' or 'evolution is God's
> method,' doesn't do (hasn't seemed
> to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the
> field of biology
> that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no
> purpose in
> biological change-over-time. The effort to influence the
> grammar of
> biologists to include such concepts may be commendable, yet
> little fruit
> seems to have come of it. I'd be glad to hear some
> counter-evidence to this
> claim if you can provide it.
>
> >
>
> > And it may turn out that our cosmologies are more
> similar to each other's
> than the contrasting ways we view change, development,
> variation,
> differentiation, flux, adaptation and other such concepts
> that are not
> exclusive to being perceived ONLY within an evolutionary
> paradigm. Evolution
> is simply not a King or Queen theory in my books.
>
> >
>
> > Regards,
>
> >
>
> > G. Arago
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > btw, M-Genesis, do you have a good paper or on-line
> link about this?
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 8/8/08, George Cooper
> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: George Cooper
> <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
>
> > Subject: [asa] M-Genesis
>
> > To: asa@calvin.edu
>
> > Received: Friday, August 8, 2008, 6:12 PM
>
> >
>
> > Howdy Greg,
>
> >
>
> > There is an evolutionary process found in
> cosmology. For instance,
> the
>
> > nebulae "species" will evolve into
> the stellar "species"
>
> > given the
>
> > occurrence of adequate "mutations"
> (eg supernova blasts). Each
> star,
>
> > using
>
> > this example, will be different than another.
> Also, these
> differences play
>
> > an important roll in subsequent events.
> Originally, there were no
> metals
>
> > (elements > helium) to speak of that are
> necessary for any bio
> evolution.
>
> > This analogy to biology is limited, but the
> point is how things do
> change
>
> > and, more importantly, they change for
> "the good". The paramaters
> of
>
> > the
>
> > universe must be just right to allow these
> changes to bring about
> more
>
> > advance things. If you want sentient beings to
> emerge through
> natural
>
> > processes, be sure to design your universe like
> this one. :)
>
> >
>
> > This view includes a Designer. The fine tuning
> aspects of the
> universe
>
> > infers a Designer, but it doesn't demand
> one. The objective
> arguments only
>
> > allow a subjective claim for a Creator. Thus,
> it isn't science
> since it is
>
> > not testable nor observeable. [Multiverse
> ideas offer one
> alternative,
>
> > especially for those who would object to such
> an inference as God
> the
>
> > Creator. Indeed, it is why I think some are
> quick to call them
> theories
>
> > when they are not. The more legitimate they
> look, the more God
> appears
>
> > removed from the event. ]
>
> >
>
> > Greg wrote: Above you wrote methodology, now
> you write method. Most
> people
>
> > speak of evolutionary 'theory' or of
> evolution as a 'fact of
>
> > natural
>
> > history.' Yet you seem to be elevating it
> into something more
> significant,
>
> > into a method(ology). Is this your intention?
>
> >
>
> > [BTW, I am now using Outlook, but when I do a
> reply I am not
> allowed any
>
> > font control. Any ideas?]
>
> >
>
> > Yes, I am using evolution as a general term for
> advanced change,
> and not
>
> > restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it
> is a wonderful and
> natural
>
> > process that was planned from the beginning.
> These processes are
> integral,
>
> > to some extent, to other processes. For
> instance, aren't gamma
> rays (or
>
> > their atmospheric products) one contributor to
> mutations? Black
> holes,
>
> > supernova, hypernova, GRB's, etc. may be
> important to such
> biological
>
> > events
>
> > and the processes that form these are integral,
> along with other
> physical
>
> > parameters, to biological evolution.
>
> >
>
> > M-Genesis does not address such ideas in any
> detail, but only
> considers what
>
> > a human observer might have seen and recorded.
> Evolution gives us
> an
>
> > explanation of the natural processes that took
> place that
> eventually led to
>
> > the observations that were seen and recorded on
> the day of each
> observing
>
> > event, though millions or billions of years
> would have transpired.
> [Again,
>
> > the six days are only six days taken from the
> days of Moses.]
>
> >
>
> > Coope
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard
> is at giving junk
> email the
>
> > boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on
> Options in Mail and
> switch to
>
> > New Mail today or register for free at
> <http://mail.yahoo.ca/>
> http://mail.yahoo.ca
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to
> majordomo@calvin.edu with
>
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the
> body of the message.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ________________________________
>
> >
>
> > Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at
> giving junk email the
> boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <
> <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
> http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Looking for the perfect gift?
> <http://www.flickr.com/gift/> Give the gift
> of Flickr!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 20 12:51:58 2008