Re: Fall of evolved man

Glenn Morton (
Thu, 06 Nov 1997 19:48:37 -0600

At 11:06 AM 11/6/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:

>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."

Since animals don't get divorced, I presume he was speaking of humanity.

>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.

As long as there is a break of some sort between the animal part of our
ancestry and the spiritual part, then the fall occurs as described in
Scripture. It is for this reason I can't accept a gapless economy that I
think Howard van Till advocates. Is it ad hoc? Maybe. "ad hoc" in Latin
means "towards this [end or purpose]." The entire reason Christianity has
rejected evolution is ad hoc. It is toward the end of defending the
authority of Scripture. So I would say that your anti-evolutionary position
is also ad hoc. If you had no desire to believe the scripture, you would
have no reason to be antievolutionary. If you doubt this, ask yourself how
many NON-christians are antievolutionists based upon the scientific
evidence. There are very, very very few.

>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?

No. A clone would not have the identical wiring diagram. It would be
similar, but not identical.

>>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 don't seek a perfect human society. Sin prevents that. I also don't want
science with no morals. But the concept that evolution gives rise to racism
is clearly wrong. Sin gives rise to racism whether that sin is in the
Christian or in the non-christian.

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?"

My point is that scientific theories, like theologies, can be used for good
or for bad. It is not the theory that brings the bad, but the sin.


Foundation, Fall and Flood