Re: Apologetics, Genesis, and C S Lewis

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Thu, 03 Dec 1998 10:25:13 -0500 (EST)

At 04:27 PM 11/30/98 -0400, David Campbell wrote:
>Moorad Alexanian wrote
>>The difficulty of reconciling the Fall of Man with evolutionary theory is
>>what makes me question the theory vis a vis Scripture. The ascent of man in
>>evolutionary theory is so contrary to the descent of man so clearly stated
>>in Scripture. Of course, scientists ought to realize that there is a wealth
>>of human experiences that has nothing to do with the findings of their
>>science. It is in this area where the Bible is most relevant.
>
>I do not see why evolutionary theory should be any more difficult to
>reconcile with the Fall than the creation of man directly from dust. As a
>description of how God created our physical bodies, it does not provide any
>direct insight into moral issues. The only progress that can be
>legitimately defined with respect to natural selection is whether one is
>able to outcompete the other. From the Bible, it is clear that this is a
>poor guideline to moral status. Obviously, athletes are no more likely
>than anyone else to be morally commendable. I can say based on biology
>that we are better than apes at running but worse at climbing trees.
>Whether this is an improvement or not depends on which is more useful in
>the situation at hand. Morally, I do not think it makes any difference.
>As to the moral difference between us and earlier humans, Mt. 11:20-24
>suggests that we ought to be improving but are getting worse. Although one
>can point to certain aspects of culture in which morality shows an
>increase, I do not think anyone can support the claim that humanity is
>improving as a whole in this regard, except possibly in correlation with
>the spread of the gospel.
>
>Although many people try to claim that biological evolution supports
>ideologies that claim that humanity is progressing (or would be progressing
>if they followed the ideology), the definition of progress is imposed from
>outside biology. Also, these usually deviate from the goal of increasing
>your genes in future generations. Marxism, for example, asks me to put the
>good of the proletariat above my personal goal of promoting my own genes
>(assuming I am trying to be as evolutionarily successful as possible).
>Eugenics in all its forms (Social Darwinism, Nazism, abortion because of
>genetic features, etc.) invent some ideal form for humans that often
>suspiciously resembles the founder but has no guarentee of matching my
>genes.
>
>David C.

When I use the term "evolutionary theory" to mean a truly scientific
theory--like theories in physics, where God plays no role. As such all sorts
of moral questions, e.g. the Fall of Man, do not make any sense. Of course,
if you want to make-up a hybrid "theory" by mixing science and religion, so
be it. Evolutionary process means increase in complexity. Surely the
reasoning ability of man is the most complex process known. Did early
ancestors of man reason like we did? The problem with your post is that you
mix science and religion whereas I think of them separately. God does not
explicitly appear in any true, scientific theory. Term like humanity have
no place in evolutionary theory. It seems that there had to be a transition
from non-human to human. What is the mechanism for it? I tell you
evolutionary theory gives rise to more questions than meaningful answers.

Moorad