Re: Apologetics, Genesis, and C S Lewis

Adam Crowl (
Tue, 22 Dec 1998 06:43:48 PST

Hi Group,

Sorry I'm so late replying...

>Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:20:23 -0500 (EST)
>From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Apologetics, Genesis, and C S Lewis
>To: Adam Crowl <>
>At 04:33 AM 12/12/98 -0800, Adam Crowl wrote:
>Moorad wrote:
>>>The statement that man descends from lower forms of life, e.g. apes,
>>>macroevolution. That is to say, there is a change in kind not merely
>>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
>>cultural evolution.
>I thought the Christian view is that man is mind/body/spirit. Does an
>have a spirit?
What is spirit? We all [humans and animals]partake of God's Spirit
according to the OT - hence spirit is life. Paul says we know our minds
by our spirits - hence it seems to be "consciousness". Are animals
conscious and alive? They seem to be, but we know that many brain
processes occur without us being aware of them, so maybe animals aren't
aware. Maybe. However spirit seems to be a common possession according
to the OT. Our spirit however goes to God at death. Whatever that means.

>>>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.
>>>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
>>>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
>>situations and not others? No. Instead we hold that God is in all
>>situations - God's actions are "Nature", miracle or otherwise.
>>are usually natural events that are timed well, or given new meaning
>>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
>transcends His creation. Man can know only what the Creator allows him
>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?
Bit different from knowing the processes of Creation though. I think
that the argument "we don't know, so we can't know - it's a mystery" is
just a cop out. There's no limitation on knowledge that I know of yet -
I don't mean "perfect physical knowledge" that quantum precludes. And I
don't mean mathematical limits [halting problem, Godel's theorem etc.] I
mean I don't think there's a domain that we can't grasp or explore.
That's my faith-leap on this issue.

Others choose God as their Beyond because they can't face the Unknown.
But God never said that he'd shield us from such, just that he'd be with
us and he works all towards his end.


Get Your Private, Free Email at