Re: Panda's from 1995

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 21:38:16 EST

Miller doesn't eradicate the concept of sin from his mind:

Evolution is neither more nor less than the result of respecting the reality
> and consistency of the physical world over time. To fashion material beings
> with an independent physical existence, any Creator would have had to
> produce an independent material universe in which our evolution over time
> was a contingent possibility. A believer in the divine accepts that God's
> love and gift of freedom are genuine - so genuine that they include the
> power to choose evil and, if we wish, to freely send ourselves to Hell.
> Not all believers will accept the stark conditions of that bargain, but our
> freedom to act has to have a physical and biological basis. Evolution and
> its sister sciences of genetics and molecular biology provide that basis. In
> biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the
> creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral
> and spiritual choices. [emphasis mine]

As a Calvinist I neither accept Miller's definition of freedom nor that God
necessarily must use evolution in order to have free creatures.
Nevertheless, I don't see Miller denying sin either original or actual (both
of which BTW are part of the Catholic faith). I don't think Miller would
disagree with you that science cannot explain sin. If angels being
non-corporeal can sin then the origin of sin is immaterial. As such, it is
even more outside the purview of science then merely demonstrating the
design of the material Universe. Furthermore, requiring science to explain
sin mechanistically is dangerously close to making God the author of it.

On 11/12/05, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>
> Since I do not know what the Catholic faith is, I am in no position to
> evaluate the logical consistency of Miller's support of evolution and his
> Catholic faith. If one believes in the reality of sin, then one has to
> account for it. It seems to me that no scientific theory can do that because
> sin is not in the subject matter of science. If man did evolve from either
> nonliving matter or simpler living organisms, then sin must have entered
> somehow. Otherwise, let us eradicate that word from our minds.
>
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Rich Blinne [mailto:rich.blinne@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sat 11/12/2005 6:43 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Cc: George Murphy; Keith Miller; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Panda's from 1995
>
>
>
>
> On 11/12/05, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
>
> Could you spell out what Kenneth Miller believes concerning evolution and
> how it jibes with the truth of the death and resurrection of our Lord and
> the salvation of His people? Just saying so does not make it so!
>
>
> My question to you is how does it contradict it? Just saying so does not
> make it so! As far as I can find Miller does not build a positive theology
> from evolution other than God designs in part via evolutionary processes.
> Rather, he claims that evolution doesn't contradict the Catholic faith. So,
> I repeat my question. Where does he do this? Where does evolution as
> espoused by Miller contradict the truths of the death and resurrection of
> our Lord and the salvation of His people?
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 12 21:39:27 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 21:39:27 EST