>>The statement that man descends from lower forms of life, e.g. apes, is
>>macroevolution. That is to say, there is a change in kind not merely in
>In kind? In what way? Certainly not physically. The only significant
>difference is in brain and mind. But in what way? Certainly nothiong
>about us is exceptional except for the rather puzzling brain expansion -
>all else is the end product of a long process of quasi-biological
I thought the Christian view is that man is mind/body/spirit. Does an ape
have a spirit?
>>The notion of "God of the gaps" intrigues me. It is often said, in a
>>positive fashion, that people meet God when they find themselves in
>>desperate situations when all other sorts of help have failed--e.g. the
>>person who becomes destitute and then turns to God and his life is
>>changed. Now if in this instance such a need for God is praised, why is
>>same situation--when it arises in the attempt of explaining the
>>universe--characterized in the negative fashion of "God of the gaps?"
>One need is a failure to cope when faced with something beyond the
>individual's ability. The other is a failure of imagination by an
>individual - a somewhat different situation. But the real issue is, as
>another has mentioned, bad theology. Do we believe that God acts in some
>situations and not others? No. Instead we hold that God is in all
>situations - God's actions are "Nature", miracle or otherwise. Miracles
>are usually natural events that are timed well, or given new meaning by
>the context. Should we expect any less of God in the past?
I believe both instances indicate a helplessness in man in the face of
personal problems or intellectual limitations. The strength of our
imagination is limited by us being creatures and there being a Creator that
transcends His creation. Man can know only what the Creator allows him to
know. Of course, man can study the creation but that surely does not lead to
a total knowledge of the Creator. Witness the plan of salvation of man, how
can we know that from studying nature?