Glenn Morton (
Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:45:31

Jan de Konig wrote:
> Thank you for your explanation. I understand your frustrations.However,
>I don't quite agree with what you wrote about "philosophy." Note, I don't say
>philosphers.Not all philosophers and theologians think in the way youdescribe
>it. That is the main reason I write. They do not all have a closed mind. I
>believe, you simplify things too much.

Obviously I am a poor communicator (which may be half my problem) but I did
not aim that statement about "philosophy" at philosophers. (I spent a year in
grad school in philosophy; the birth of my first son saved the fine profession
of philosophy from having me as a member) I aimed it at a particular
approach to evolution that I see far too often and find very unsatisfying. I
called that the philosophical approach because it relies on a
non-observational approach to the problem.

The power of the theory of evolution lies in its ability to provide a
framework for the actual history of the earth and the life forms thereon. No
evolutionist would talk about the transition from fish to amphibian as an
allegorical account of tetrapod origins. This transition actually happened.
The lack of such a REAL HISTORY for Christian views leaves us in a less
powerful position.

I can point to a set of rocks which contains the fossil forms, I can tell you
about the similarities in the fossils from fish to tetrapod, the fact that
panderichthyid fish lost all but four fins under their bodies, had lungs and
gills, had the humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and
fibula in the hindlimb. The earliest tetrapods had the same, lungs and gills
except the fins were now fitted at the end with up to 8 "fingers". But their
legs could not support their weight and did not have full motion. They had
half evolved legs. The skulls of fish and amphibian were nearly identical. The
transition is quite fascinating. AND IT WAS REAL HISTORY.

Too often Christians write books which tell the reader why evolution can't be
true. But the author's are so happy to tell us what is wrong with evolution,
they forget to give a framework within which to explain the data. They forget
that just because evolution is wrong, it does not mean that Christians are
correct. And they fail to give a REAL HISTORY of what did happen. Try to find
in Darwin on Trial how the sequence from fish to tetrapod took place (Did God
create every link [5 or 6 links] separately?); why the tetrapods appear in
the record when it did, just after arachnids and snails on land appear
(evolutionists say the tetrapods were attracted by the food; what is the
anti-evolutionist to say?). They don't tell me why they are right, how to fit
the data into their metaphysical view. To them the data is irrelevant and thus
divorce the christian view from earth history.
>We must not forget,
>that the OT was written by Hebrews for Hebrews. Hebrew outlook on life
>(philosophy)was quite different from the Greek outlook philosophically. The
>Greeks say that a statement is correct (according to fact) or wrong(that is
>factually untrue.) Hebrews may use a story which is "factually" (in Greek
>sense) not true, in order to make Truth clear. I have therefor no problem to
>read Gen.1 as a kind of a poem to show the Israelites:God created the sun and
>the moon and the stars and etc.,the Sun is not God the Moon is not God,no
>star is God,no Cow should be worshipped.They are all created just like we

No matter what interpretation one puts on Genesis, it would still have that
effect for the ancients.

>Even more, man is important, he may take care of the creation ( not rule
> it.) But, in connection with Romans 5:16,17, I do insist, that all humanity
> descended from one man. Thus I am not so sure, that one will ever find
>"proof" of a world-wide flood.

A world-wide flood is absolutely, geologically impossible. Those who think it
is should take a carbonate field trip with a geologist not of the ICR variety.
There are things they do not tell their readers.


Foundation,Fall and Flood