Re: theology of the cross of some theistic evolutionists

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 30 Jan 1997 22:01:13 -0600

At 11:01 AM 1/30/97, Pattle Pun wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Glenn Morton wrote:
>> If the Fall is historical in space and time, then it is fair game for one to
>> ask questions like:
>> Where did it happen? What was the effect on behavior? What evidence can be
>> found of this behavioural change? What kind of hominid was Adam? etc, etc.
[my "and so forth" sniped] Dr. Pun writes:

>The attempts to answer this question should be made. At the same time, one
>should not be dogmatic on its answer. The important lesson for us to learn
>is to separate the essentials from non-essentials, the former has to do
>with our salvific knowledge with God, the latter is the area of
>intellectual conjecture.

However, I would like to point out that for any given concept of what
happened, one can never prove a given scenario actually occurred, one can
disprove a given scenario (i.e. prove that the scenario is inconsistent with
observational data) For scenarios which have been disproven, one can be
quite dogmatic that they are disproven. I consider the YEC scenario quite

One can show that a given scenario is logically inconsistent with its own
assumptions. In such cases one can be quite dogmatic that they are
internally inconsistent with the expectations of the assumptions.

Any other treatment of inconsistent and observationally falsified views
leads to relativism in which any ol' theory is as good as the next.


Foundation, Fall and Flood