Re: Fall of evolved man

David Campbell (
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 17:37:53 -0400

Moorad wrote:
>But such an approach makes Christianity an appendix to evolutionary ideas in
>order to merely salvage our Faith. As a physicist I am more knowledgable of
>cosmology, a deductive science just like evolution, where we cannot be
>certain that a Big Bang actually occurred.
Christianity is founded on the truth of historical evidence; at some scale
any science is based on accepting historical evidence (I have to believe
the evidence that an experimant took place if I am to find importance in
replicating it.)

>Scientists will one day claim that our actions are governed by our genes.
Some already do, but not because the evidence supports it. A recent study
(I think the summary I saw was in Nature) found that sexual behavior
affects the brain structure in rats. This demonstrates yet another flaw in
the claims that brain structure proves that sexual orientation is
genetically predetermined.

>Long ago Descartes said that "matter cannot think" and so it is. Perhaps
>C.S. Lewis said it best when he said that "reasoning is supernatural." It is
>so obvious that a purely scientific approach to the whole of reality is apt
>to lead to all sorts of nonsense.

That doesn't stop people from trying. It was particularly entertaining to
see a NOVA special on Steve Gould many years ago that proceeded directly
from "there are no moral values inherent in nature" to "proving" that
racism is wrong.

>For instance, if evolution is true, why
>not help it. Wasn't that the logic of Hitler?
Also of Lenin, eugenicists, and social Darwinists. The answer is twofold.
First, in the Bible, and (less clearly) in our consciouses, God has
revealed that this approach is wrong.
Secondly, evolution, lacking an inherent direction, can't be
"helped" and cannot say that a particular group is "better". Oppressing
people who are not closely related to you can help increase your genetic
fitness, but you must assume that "promoting my genetic fitness is good".
Also, by this principle you have no grounds to complain if other folks do
the same to you.

>If evolution is true, is it possible that some races are less developed than
Everyone who is alive today has had the same amount of time to evolve.
Individual traits could be compared between different individuals to
determine which are probably most similar to the ancestral condition.
Different races are more similar to the ancestral condition in different
ways, but "superiority" of the sort endorsed by racism is not a scientific
term. I can scientifically determine that most people of other races are
"superior" to me at getting a dark suntan, but that does not address the
question of whether they are better than I am.

>We must know what science is and what it is not in order to make some real
>good >sense of all our experiences. Otherwise, Heaven helps us.

This seems to be at the root of most of the trouble between religion and

David Campbell