Re: Fall of evolved man

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:34:20 -0500 (EST)

At 02:34 AM 11/9/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>At 10:34 AM 11/9/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>I do not believe there are any specific verses that can settle the issue of
>>evolution of man. But there are all sorts of questions: creation of man in
>>the image of God, Christ being Perfect Man (clearly not fallen), and many
>>others that I cannot reconcile with the basic tenets of a purely scientific
>>evolutionary theory. If the latter is then not satisfying, then the
>>alternative is a continuum of ideas from creation of man by fiat to all
>>sorts of half-baked theories to reconcile the Christian faith with an
>>evolutionary dynamics. I wonder what is the reaction of your children to
>>your views on origins.
>My children became evolutionists before I did. They couldn't understand how
>their old man could ignore so much evidence. They were right to wonder.

My children erred on the side of God. The evidence for evolution is not all
that overwhelming. Would you bet your eternity with God on it? Don't you
have a reasonable doubt on the truthfulness of evolutionary ideas?

>>Of course, I am sure your views are not looked at
>>favorably but most who believe in a purely scientific approach to the
>>question of origins.
>When I was preparing Foundation, Fall and Flood for publication. I sent it
>to 5 young-earth creationists and 5 people active in science AND in the
>anticreation movement. Some of them were atheists. I wanted to get the most
>severe criticism of my views so that I could correct any errors. I didn't
>hear back from a single young-earth creationist. Those in science actively
>helped me by correcting me and sending articles with supportive or
>corrective information. What I have found is that those in science may not
>accept my views as representing reality (and I don't yet have the confirming
>evidence I would like to have) but they don't disagree with the evidence I
>cite. I have had atheists tell me that I had the first plausible theory of
>how to harmonize scripture with science that they have ever seen. I don't
>get the hostility that you might expect from them. I get the hostility from
>young-earth creationists far more often.

I do not think any Christian should be afraid of where good science leads
us. Christ said He is the Truth and so every search in any subject matter
will invariably lead to Christ--" whom are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge." Col. 2:2. There should be little disagreement on the
evidence, but there can be much disagreement on how the data should be

>>>>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.
>>That is the problem I see with evolutionary explanations. We will never know
>>the answer but in the meantime we may be misleading people away from God.
>So, are you suggesting that if an answer "leads away from God" that we are
>to avoid talking about it? Isn't that suppression of the truth? God is a
>big boy and since he already knows scientific truth, I imagine that He can
>handle it. He probably wonders why we christians go to such extreme lengths
>to avoid what we see with our eyes.

As I have indicated an honest search for the truth will invariably lead us

> If
>>ever an answer is found to the question of origins, which I don't think it
>>will ever happen, most of us will be dead and many in their sins. What good
>>is then the theory? If a surgeon general warning should be on any textbook,
>>it should be on those that advocate that evolutionary theory explains the
>>origin of man. Such ideas are more deadly than smoking, drinking, etc. Why
>>then not a warning?
>I would disagree with you here. What is very dangerous and what almost
>turned me into an atheist was the fact that my fellow christians were NOT
>telling me data that contradicted their own viewpoint. They also would never
>provide answers to any question. They would either become silent, say
>something so contrary to fact that it was laughable or would advocate
>waiting until next century for the answer to a very simple quesiton. It was
>what I call the great YETI search. We don't have an answer YET but we will
>find one in the future.
>The pull of evolution is that it can answer detailed observations. This is
>precisely what Christian harmonizations have failed to provide. No wonder
>my friend John McKiness has given up on concordism.

It is poor scholarship not to confront all the data to make some sense out
of them. Of course, some data may not be so readily amenable for
interpretation. Everyone has a multitude of data in their life not only the
ones found in the laboratory or out in the field. How about questions of
meaning, value, purpose. What about the myriad of moral questions that arise
in our lifetimes? Science has not answers whatsoever to such questions. Must
we say that they are meaningless questions or say that the Christian
answering are wishful thinking, as Weinberg says. I believe those questions
are much more important than the scientific questions. Therefore, why should
I give up meaningful answers to such deep question for the sake of a
hypothesis which may even be false.

>>I ask you who is more susceptible to condone euthanasia, abortion, assisted
>>suicide, sterilization of the mentally weak, eugenics, doing away with the
>>weak and old, etc., you or your boss? Atheism is very comfortable with an
>>evolutionary theory. A Christian ought not to believe such a theory [note
>>the word 'believe'], or else handle it with extreme care. We have agreed
>>that a sinful person will find any source to justify his/her views of
>>others. You are pointing to the obvious danger of just looking to parts of
>>the Bible and not the whole. And let us not forget that the word "Christian"
>>is very misused. My dilemma is, what does the whole Bible, not parts of it,
>>have to say about our origin?
>It says God created us. It doesn't say how. You can't find a verse where it
>says "animals reproduce animals after their kind." with animal as the
>subject and object of the sentence. I am still waiting for someone to
>provide Biblical proof for an antievolutionary stand.

The word "kind" is used many times in Genesis with the same meaning and it
seems obvious to me that for those who read it at that time it meant
cardinals give rise to cardinals, lions give rise to lions, etc.

Take care,