Thanks for the responses. They help me understand your working assumptions
regarding the character of the biblical text and its relevance to
contemporary science. (Whether I agree or not is another matter :)
Howard Van Till
>From: Adrian Teo <email@example.com>
> Here are my responses:
>> > Assuming that God created all life forms in their own "kinds"....
>> What is the warrant for that assumption?
> Gen 20-25. All animals were created after their own kinds. Humans, on the
> other hand, were created, in a sense, after God's own kind (in HIs image).
>> > (however one
>> > chooses to define what this means, but it almost certainly
>> must be above the
>> > level of the species), ....
>> Why should the biblical "kinds" have anything whatsoever to
>> do with modern
>> classification categories?
> They don't have to correspond, but I'm sure scientists would still want to
> map those onto their calssfication scheme.
>> > .... either simultaneously, or at different times, it
>> > seems to me that this perspective is able to account for
>> all the scientific
>> > evidence that evolution can.
>> Biologists/paleontologists/geologists.... on this list are capable of
>> providing numerous counterexamples, but why would they want
>> to take the time
>> to do it once again?????
> I guess they don't have to, but they sure are spending a whole lot of energy
> (in this group anyway) providing counterexamples to YEC, and much of the
> stuff have been brought up several times over the years. At the very least,
> OEC doesn't have to deal with the age of earth issue.
>> > Microevolution is accepted, and accounts for a
>> > wide array of observations. Extinction is also allowed in
>> this view, which
>> > explains why we don't see many creatures that we find in
>> the fossil record.
>> Why allow extinction? Is that a Biblical concept?
> Perhaps not obviously, but I don't think extinction contradicts the Bible.
> Otherwise evolution would have the same problem for Christians as well.
>> > What we find in common across different species (physical
>> > genetic sequences, etc.) could be accounted for by the fact that God
>> > recycles basic building blocks in different types of creatures.
>> Where did that "fact" come from?????
> Fact was probably a poor choice of words. Assumption would have been more
> apt. And I would argue that the assumption is a reasonable one and in no way
> contradicts the Bible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 16 2002 - 10:10:05 EST