Re: Fall of evolved man

Glenn Morton (
Wed, 05 Nov 1997 22:03:58 -0600

Hi Karen,

At 01:12 PM 11/5/97 -0600, Karen G. Jensen wrote:

>on Tue, 04 Nov 1997 22:52:03 -0600, you wrote:
>>Being partly evolved does not rule out our dependence upon Him.
>Yes. Since the original creation, all living things have been modified
>genetically, and if that is evolution (or in many cases "devolution"), then
>every living thing is "partly evolved", and, yes, intimately dependent on
>Him. If He withdrew His care, all would die. In Him we and live move and
>have our being. Acts 17:28
>I know you meant originally evolved, not just subsequently modified. But
>our awareness of our direct dependence upon Him is much greater if we
>acknowledge that He specially created mankind, and each kind.

I would submit that the issue is not about our awareness, but about the
truth of the matter. While we may feel more aware of our dependence with one
view or another, this does not constitute a good reason for accepting a
position. I actually would feel more awe if the world had a solid firmament
with water above it but that is no reason to reject the data from astronomy.

>>find a verse in the bible that says "animals give rise to animals after
>>their kind" with animals as the subject and animals as the object?
>Gen 1:11-12, 1:21-25, 6:20, and 7:14, Leviticus 11:13-19, Deut 14:13-18,
>etc. list plants and animals which reproduce "after their kind", more
>literally translated "to their kind". I haven't found a Bible verse that
>says "the raven brings forth the raven" in these passages, but everyone
>knows that it does. Maybe the author didn't consider it necessary to say
>exactly that for us. But I will keep looking.

But notice that in Genesis 1:11 God told the EARTH to produce fruit trees
after their kind. It does not say that fruit trees produce fruit trees
after their kind. One needs to pay attention to what the subject of the
sentence really is.

Similarly Genesis 1:25 God is the subject. He created the cattle after their
kind. This is not the same as saying He created animals to reproduce after
their kind. I really don't know how christians have missed this distinction
for so long and have used these verses to say that the Bible rules out
evolution. It doesn't rule it out.

>Of course there is adaptation within each kind, so the raven and the crow
>and other corvids have differentiated from the original. But there are
>limits to
>such change. Darwin as a breeder of pigeons and other animals and plants
>knew this. But he decided to extrapolate observed domestic breeding within
>kinds (and observed geographical variation in wild kinds) to changes from
>one kind to others. I believe he made a mistake.

I haven't seen a limit to change. Look at what the wolf has been turned
into. St. Bernards, chihuahuas, dachsunds etc. This change has occurred
over a period of only 10,000 years. The usual retort is that they are still
dogs. But if you killed off every dog in between the St. Bernard and the
chihuahua, you would have classified them as different species, because they
wouldn't breed.

> What
>>people read as ruling out evolution really doesn't rule it out.
>And what people read as proving evolution doesn't prove it.

I agree with you that one can not prove evolution in the sense that
Christians often use the term. But then by those same standards, I can't
prove that I had a grandfather or that George Washington existed. That
seems to be a unusable standard of proof. One can find lots of support for


Foundation, Fall and Flood