Re: Panda's from 1995

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Sun Nov 13 2005 - 01:26:57 EST

A part of me wonders why "one has to account for it". If one has choice,
then one is capable of making better or worse choices against any of
several systems of valuation. That God exists and has expectations, and
that there might be consequences beyond the "natural" ones are certainly
possibilities. But these do not require a specific "accounting" or
accurate description of the origins unless we motivated to temper our
culpability by letting Adam share the guilt. But that wouldn't really be
fair, now, would it?

The errant acts are in the now, and are ours. I think it matters not
exactly what the origins story is if we have a strong sense of
responsibility (stewardship) and culpability for unsatisfactory
performance. What if we had no origins story at all (despite the
compulsion to develop one)? Would we then likely to develop with no
system of right and wrong? ...and no sense that that right and wrong
might be in terms of the Almighty's intent?

It sorta seems to me that it might be reasonable to think of the
possibility that a sense of right and wrong might slowly "crystallize"
with the evolutionary development of man (a front-loading perspective).
Moreover, an explanatory story might subsequently and naturally arise
as that sense of right and wrong begins to gel along with a need to
communicate the notion to others including subsequent generations. Could
a sense of right and wrong exist without (before) a language of
communication?

Just ruminating out loud. - JimA

Alexanian, Moorad 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 Sun Nov 13 01:29:49 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 13 2005 - 01:29:49 EST