RE: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")

From: Adrian Teo (
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 12:35:22 EST

  • Next message: Adrian Teo: "RE: Original sin (was Re: Human origins and doctrine ...)"

    Hello David,

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: bivalve []
    > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 2:41 PM
    > To:
    > Subject: RE: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of "Species")
    > >
    > I think two separate questions are involved that need
    > separated. On the one hand, there is the question of
    > whether creation of our physical bodies using only the
    > ordinary means of evolutionary processes poses any
    > problem for our understanding of Adam, original sin, etc. I
    > would affirm that the answer to this is no. I see no reason
    > why whether God took a body made via the process of
    > evolution or a body made directly from dirt or one made by
    > reassembling dry bones would make any difference in His
    > ability to give it a soul and tell it to mind the garden. This is
    > perhaps not a "purely evolutionary framework", but
    > biologically (not sociologically) it is probably
    > indistinguishable. Likewise, the integral relationship
    > between body and spirit would have to be created at some
    > point, whatever the means of creating the body.

    Thank you for framing the issue so clearly. I would agree that the processes
    you described are probably scientifically indistinguishable, which BTW,
    seems to support my contention that OEC is a viable alternative for
    Christians who do not reject science.

    > A separate question is whether purely physical processes
    > can account for spirituality. As spirituality is not physical,
    > the answer seems to be no. However, this does not rule
    > out some sort of spiritual evolution according to
    > metaphysical laws, in parallel with physical evolution, nor
    > the possibility that a certain level of physical development
    > automatically entails spirituality according to some
    > metaphysical law. Neither of these have greater appeal for
    > me than the idea that God simply endowed spiritual
    > natures without the means of metaphysical law, but I do not
    > know of data that would test between these options.

    Again, I fully agree with you on the relative (lack of) appeal of such


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 25 2002 - 12:36:05 EST