Re: [asa] Designed Kangaroos?

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Wed Aug 01 2007 - 18:12:40 EDT

Yes, not to dismiss it or write it off as 'figurative' on the other extreme of 'literal.'
  Ian writes: "we must think about what the Fall narrative _means_ rather than being stuck on whether it happened literally as described. (Man+woman+fruit)."
  Though I'm confused by the word 'stuck' since it seems that all religious persons commit to adhering to certain dogmas and doctrines, the quest for meaning is agreeable. This meaning is constructed by individuals interpreting the (a) text which was passed on to us by ancestors. Our ancestors, in the traditions called Muslim, Christian and Jewish, agree that Adam was directly created by G-D. Adam lived with his woman Eve; Eve lived with her man the flesh.
  The thrust behind Ian's defensive/obscuring stance may involve real carefullness with not wanting to interpret something as 'historically true,' which was not so. He may feel honour-bound to expose an apparent absurdity (that is, Young Earth and/or c. 4-6000 yr. old Adam) because his 'scientific' knowledge tells him what is most likely true. But it would be wrong to throw out elements of the story that may be historically true just because the 'meaning' of the Fall is now in doubt. Darwin, of course, had a lot to do with this.
  Added note: Anthropology, sociology, psychology and cultural studies are much more significant on/for the 'meaning' of 'the Fall narrative' than it is for physics, chemistry, biology or geology. Are we agreed on this, Iain?

David Opderbeck <> wrote:
  But Iain, though I agree with you on the need for a broader hermeneutical perspective, and though I agree with you that it's too pat and simple to attribute carnivorous animals and such to a recent historical fall, I'm really struggling with the way in which, it seems to me, you're dismissing a central narrative of the Christian faith. The picture scripture gives us of human rebellion against God is, in fact, the picture of a man and woman eating fruit God told them not to eat. And scripture does, in fact, suggest that this somehow messes up everything. It seems to me that we need to appropriate this picture and interpret it in the context of what we know about the physical world, but not to dismiss it.

  On 8/1/07, Iain Strachan <> wrote: Peter

  On 7/28/07, Peter Loose < > wrote:
  Iain and Friends:
  I find this stance in respect of 'bad things being literally due to one historical woman and her husband eating a piece of fruit' to be very sad.


Sorry, but that is exactly what my YEC friends tell me. That the fall is a literal historical event, tied precisely to Adam and Eve eating the fruit, literally on a given day. As direct result of this God put the curse on the whole of creation, and from thenceforth all the bad things happened. "Carnivory" started up (I've even seen articles on this on the AiG website), animals started eating each other.

The logical extension to this is that to answer Michael's pointed question as to why God "designed" the Ebola virus is that Adam's specific act of disobedience in eating the forbidden fruit was the direct reason that God made this happen.

My creationist friends tell me that the whole Gospel falls apart if you don't accept this.

I agree - the whole stance is very sad indeed, and I feel honour bound as a Christian to continue to point out its absurdity - an absurdity that keeps people away from Christianity because most people think you must be a nutter to believe such things.

As I have said elsewhere, we must think about what the Fall narrative _means_ rather than being stuck on whether it happened literally as described. (Man+woman+fruit).


Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 1 18:13:06 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 01 2007 - 18:13:06 EDT