Re: Fall of evolved man

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:20:54 -0500 (EST)

At 08:31 AM 11/10/97 -0600, Glenn Morton wrote:
>At 01:34 PM 11/10/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>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?
>I don't think my eternity depends on my belief or lack thereof in evolution.
> Jesus didn't say,
>"Believe in me and NOT in evolution and thou shalt be saved."
>Jesus didn't say,
>"Believe in me AND the constancy of the species and thou shalt be saved."
>John 3:16 doesn't say "Whosoever disbeleives evolution shall have eternal
>Suggesting that evolution is inconsistent with salvation is doing what Paul
>warns us against in Galatians 1. It is a preaching a different Gospel.

I never said that belief in evolution implies that one cannot be saved. I do
believe that it may be a stumbling block to many who would replace the truth
of the philosophy behind evolutionary thoughts by the truth of Scripture.

>> Don't you
>>have a reasonable doubt on the truthfulness of evolutionary ideas?
>I value truth very highly. When I find that christian apologists were not
>teaching anything correct about geology and were ignoring clear disproofs of
>their concepts, I began to distrust what they were saying. One instance From
>Genesis Flood p. 388. Henry Morris said that one volcano could output
>1/1000 cubic mile of juvenile water to the earth's surface per year. Since
>there are 400 active volcanoes, each putting out 1/1000 cubic mile of
>juvenile water per year that the oceans would be filled in only 340 million
>years, much younger the 3.8 billion believed by the evolutionist. I found
>that argument quite persuasive. I went to check it out. I found that there
>are 400 active volcanoes, but that an active volcano is any volcano that has
>erupted in historical times. An active volcano is not an erupting one. On
>average there are only 40 erupting volcanos each year. Suddenly the 340
>million years becomes 3.4 billion years for the oceans to fill up. Henry
>didn't know the difference between an active and an erupting volcano.

I hope you wrote Morris and made clear where he was wrong. Perhaps you have
been chosen by the Lord to straighten out misguided Christians.

>Case after case like this happened and I began to realize that the
>evolutionists were the ones telling the truth.

It is so easy for scientists who have excelled in their subject matter to
intermingle their personal philosophies when discussing science and thus
deceive the uninitiated. Sagan and Dawkins seem to do that constantly. I
believe you should engage people in your field in discussions so that you
can affect their philosophical views of the whole of the human experience.

>>> 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
>Unfortunately too many Christians are afraid of what science teaches. And as
>to how to interpret the data, what I have found is that when a christian
>finds data that contradicts his position, the standard way to handle it is
>to either not reply to the issue or to say, "The Future will provide an
>answer". The great YETI search. But that isn't dealing with the data, that
>is procrastination. This approach is taken so that one doesn't have to
>explain the problematical data.

I agree with you that that is ignorance. We who are scientists and
Christians ought to help non scientist Christians in understanding the
nature and content of our work.

>>As I have indicated an honest search for the truth will invariably lead us
>If christians are not scrupulously honest with the facts, then they will
>drive people away from Christ. I know several young-earth arguments that
>have been disproven in young-earth literature yet young-earthers continue to
>use it. ICR scientists have admitted that the vapor canopy calculation I
>published in 1979 was correct in its conclusion, but they continue to teach
>the vapor canopy.

We can only try. But remember the Lord is in control not us. We can do so much.

>"Morton(1979) was apparently the first to conclude that the canopy
>would have made the earth's surface too hot for human habitation
>(Kofahl did not calculate surface temperatures). Morton made a
>number of assumptions that greatly simplified the problem, and his
>surface temperatures are much higher than ours, but the general
>conclusion is the same: Life as we know it would not have been
>possible under a conopy of 1013 mb (1 atm), nor even with a canopy
>of only 50 mb. When other features such as clouds are added to the
>model, this conclusion could be modified greatly, however.
>Preliminary explorations with cloud layers at the top of the 50 mb
>canopy have shown significant radiation effects which lower the
>surface temperature drastically. Unfortunately, while the surface
>temperature decreases when clouds are added, so does the
>temperature of the canopy, reducing its stability."~David E. Rush
>and Larry Vardiman, "Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy Radiative Temperature
>Profiles," in Robert E. Walsh, and Christopher L. Brooks,
>Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism,
>(Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), p. 238

So long as the ideas, even if they come from religious beliefs, are tested
in the scientific area, then that would constitute good scientific efforts.
I have indicated my problem with evolution as being more in the
philosophical arena. Of course, scientific results do have an effect on the
science that people want to derive from Scripture.

>So why does ICR continue to teach the canopy?
>>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 fully agree that the moral questions are very, very important. But an
>unwillingness to confront all the data is a moral problem if it is done to
>avoid altering one's theology. It is a lack of trust in God.


>>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.
>so are you suggesting that each and every species was individually created?

I do not know.

Thank you for your enlightening comments,