Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")

Let me seize on the sentence below because it is perhaps the most precise example of a definitional reversal that I've seen in the past 5 years of internet discussion. And the misinterpretation is likely to continue, with denials and refusals of what grammar is.
 
George Murphy wrote:
"the way their [human] evolution probably worked in reality isn't really taken into account & is replaced by, at most, a kind of abstract process of development."
 
Risking the disinvolvement of roughly 40% of the academy, i.e. that which is outside of theology, philosophy and the natural sciences, the term 'development' is much more appropriate for applying to 'sinful acts' than is the term 'evolution.' Think 'developed' and 'under-developed' countries. Think 'third-world.' These are typical referents within the human-social realm and make complete sense here.
 
However, to apply 'evolution' via 'natural selection' to the topic of 'sinful acts' is to have things completely backwards; it is an unintentional yet nevertheless 'dehumanising' strategy. It is natural science-centrism at the cost of knowledge that is more important to humanity. 'Development' is not an 'abstract process' as George suggests, but rather an important concept in understanding human growth and shrinkage, flourishing, both material and spiritual, that purely physical science (e.g. methodological naturalism) leaves out, to dire consequences. Things happening to us instead of us happening (actively) in the world we are given for stewardship.

This type of confusion is what is at the heart of secularisation.
 
Gregory
 
p.s. notice the passive voice employed by George - "evolution via natural selection would have bequeathed..." This is not an active, agent-like force.

 
--- On Thu, 11/13/08, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

From: George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] Bloesch on the Fall (was "Adam and the Fall")
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>, asa@calvin.edu
Received: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 9:47 PM

What Bloesch does not seem to take into account is the propensity for sinful acts that evolution via natural selection would have bequeathed to the earliest humans.  I.e., the way their evolution probably worked in reality isn't really taken into account & is replaced by, at most, a kind of abstract process of development.  In some ways RC theologians like Rahner have it easier here because the traditional Roman understanding is that what was lost in the Fall is not any natural quality but an additional supernatural gift (sdonum superadditum).
 
Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 13 14:25:45 2008