Re: Fall of evolved man

Glenn Morton (
Fri, 07 Nov 1997 19:54:07 -0600

Hi Moorad,

At 01:26 PM 11/7/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>At 07:48 PM 11/6/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:

>>From the beginning of humanity. Jesus was speaking of divorce at the time.
>>Since animals don't get divorced, I presume he was speaking of humanity.
>I will look it up, but I bet the word beginning in that verse is the same as
>that in Genesis 1:1. The Very Beginning, that is, creation.
It can't be the same word. The New Testament is written in Greek and the
Old Testament is written in Hebrew. The words, by definition will be different.

>Of course, if you believe in God and
>know that there is such a thing as revealed truths, then you are ahead of
>the game and know enough to perhaps not be an evolutionist. With pout
>revealed truths and the entry of God into our world, we would be at the
>mercy of nature.

Well I do believe in God, and know that there is such a thing as revealed
truth. But that does not rule out evolution. In order to rule out
evolution via revealed truth, you must believe that you have understood the
revelation correctly and that there is no other way to understand it. Doing
that equates your interpretation with infallability. This is the problem I
have with those who take a hard-line stand that their interpretation is
correct. We cannot equate our interpretation with divine infallability.
While we may believe that our interpretation is best and can defend it
vociferously, we cannot take the position that our interpretation is
absolutely correct without making ourselves out to be equal to God.

Of the brain,

>>No. A clone would not have the identical wiring diagram. It would be
>>similar, but not identical.
>I thought the question was that the wiring needed something more than the
>physical, the genes. I am confused.

The brain requires input from the environment. But that is physical also.

>>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.
>An evolutionist that has no regard for God would!! To them the words sin,
>evil have no meaning and is used by stupid people who believe in spiritual
>matters. Evolution is necessary but not sufficient for people to believe
>that they may be superior to others. However, being a Christian removes any
>room for racism since Christ died for "us" as well as for "them."

My former boss is an atheist. He has no regard for God, thinks I am a bit
daft for being a Christian, but he tolerated that. He is not a racist in
spite of being an evolutionist. One could turn around your argument. Some
Christians believe that the curse on Ham applied to the Africans. They then
beleived that they were to be servants. Thus one could say Christianity is
necessary but not sufficient for people to believe that they are superior to
others. But this is as untrue applied to Christianity as it is to evolution.


Foundation, Fall and Flood