Re: Fall of evolved man

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:06:32 -0500 (EST)

At 12:12 AM 11/4/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>At 02:22 PM 11/3/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>Our faith deals in the realm where we exercise our free will in making moral
>>decisions. Such is not the realm of science. The interpretation of the data
>>is what is crucial. For instance, in cosmology people accept the
>>inflationary model of Alan Guth where a fast expansion is postulated to
>>solve certain know puzzles in the observed data. Could the six days of
>>Creation be the analog of the inflationary expansion posited in cosmology?
>>What I want to reconcile are questions which arise when Christ says: " Have
>>you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and
>>female." Matt. 19:4. Christ must have been referring to the Book of Genesis.
>>I am sure that Christ also made references to the Flood. Is Christ trying to
>>deceive us? What is He saying?
>No, Christ is not trying to deceive us. A reference to the flood, which
>Christ does mention, does not give enough detail to determine whether he
>beleived in a global or local flood. We are deceiving our selves if we
>think that the Bible teaches either view. The passage CAN be interpreted
>either as global or local, but the YECs insist on global. And yes God did
>create male and female. Does Math 19:4 say HOW God created? No. You are
>reading that INTO the passage and deciding that God only could have created
>as a magician does, by pulling a rabbit out of a hat. By deciding that, you
>are deciding against God creating via evolution which could be likened to
>the way an engineer creates something, i.e. over time or via a genetic

I think you miss the reason why I quoted the whole verse. It says "He who
created them from the beginning made them male and female." How do you
interpret the words "from the beginning."

>Please quit confusing evolution with explaining our existence only "on the
>basis of physics and chemistry". Nowhere did I say that evolution requires
>atheism or reductionism. You are the one who is claiming that, yet it is
>not true. Find a verse in the Bible that says "animals reproduce animals
>after their kind." By that I mean a sentence with animals as the subject
>and animals as the object. You can not find such a verse. To hold that the
>bible rules out evolution is to go way beyond the actual Biblical passages

Clearly evolution is not mentioned in the Bible, but that notion can still
be inconsistent with other verses of Scripture. I must be stubborn but I
can't see how one can reconcile the Fall of Man with evolutionary thoughts
unless by ad hoc assumptions.

>I am not going to reproduce the post on the information required to wire a
>brain that I posted about a week ago. You can find it in the archives or I
>will send it to you privately if you wish. But the point is that there is
>about 100,000 times more information required to wire a human brain than is
>held in the human geneome.

I still do not have a clear answer from you regarding the nature of cloning.
Wouldn't the wiring of the human brain be accomplished also by cloning thus
the coding for the wiring is derived from the original cell used in cloning?

>So what? Even if the word sin means nothing to them, that is not the issue.
> Evolution does not breed more racism than sinning Christians do. Evolution
>does not breed more killing than the "Christian Ku Klux Klan" did. How about
>the Christians who baptized the Incas then marched them off to their deaths?
>My point is, that you can not show that Christians are pure where it comes
>to racism, abortion, etc and the evolutionists are the bad guys. We have
>all fallen short of the glory of God.

I do not believe you realize what a horrible society we would have if the
finding of unfettered science were to be used to perfect human society. I do
not defend the actions of those so-called Christians who do not obey the
Lord. I once mentioned a "Christian" that the Armenian Genocide of the
Ottoman Turks in 1915 was done by Moslems on Christian Armenians because of
our faith. This "Christian" said there were all sorts of Christians implying
thereby that my people where not the brand of Christians which he himself
was--the select ones. I know in my own flesh what you are talking about.
Therefore, how can I be defending such "Christians?"