Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent?

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed Sep 03 2008 - 23:59:25 EDT

Merv said: Of course, the evil  would be in Adam's decision to be making death-defying dives more than in the continued action of gravity & nature after he has jumped.   Agreed.  And the greater the risk of error the greater would be help to avoid such a poor decision.  For the death by Tsunami case, a literal (M-Genesis) view of the Garden certainly helps since the Garden seems to be a very protective place.  Whatever decay may have taken place may have seen regeneration -- negative entropy and entropy together intertwined, perhaps.  Aging may have been abated.   Outside the Garden would have been a different story where the tempest of evolution would churn new varieties and species -- grand and terrible.  But, the Homo Sapiens ( Pre-Adamites)  would rule and inhabit the Earth, as God had so declared. "Coope" ----- Original Message ---- From: Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2008 5:52:13 PM Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent? Of course, the evil  would be in Adam's decision to be making death-defying dives more than in the continued action of gravity & nature after he has jumped. The car crash is interesting, though.  We choose to embrace a technology to take us at death defying speeds across pavement because we like to get places fast and without much effort.    What civilization of idiots would ever expect that nothing bad ever results from that?   I think the harder ones to answer are the hurricanes & volcanoes which aren't at all traceable back to human action, and as Keith said, contribute as part of a cycle that enables later life.  (Although --even in those cases; when we have class structures and internationally extreme inequities in which certain populations can only afford to live in harms way --then of course tsunamis and hurricanes exact high tolls.  So even there, it's hard to point the finger at God without seeing a finger pointing back.) The evolutionary creationist, I suppose, would see evil more in our manner of willful participation that leads to death & suffering more than in the mere facts of physical death & pain which, according to evolutionary thought existed independently (in a physical sense) before human responsibility. --Merv George Cooper wrote: Bernie, I agree with your natural evil view. As for accidental death by auto...that would explain why there were no cars in the Garden. I think the opportunity for death would be averted by intervention by either "natural good" or by divine hand, both preventing death. Coope -----Original Message----- From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 4:47 PM To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation Subject: RE: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent? Another natural evil example is if your tire blows out and the car crashes killing everyone in the car. Was the fall responsible for that? If ones says yes, then it seems like if there was no fall, there would be no death. In that case, Adam could have climbed the tallest tree, dived into a rock (headfirst), and wouldn't have died... probably not even a bruise? ...Bernie -----Original Message----- From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Keith Miller Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:33 PM To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam- logically inconsistent? Randy posted the following quote from Bube: "It is precisely in Genesis 1-3 that the Christian finds the biblical basis for this approach to evil. One of the basic revelations given to us in these chapters is the emphasis upon the goodness of God's creation. The creation "as it comes from the hand of God" is good and free from evil. The evil that we see around us, real moral or natural evil, is due to man's sin or to natural causes, and is not intrinsic in the creation purpose of God. Unlike many other major religions, Christianity rejects the concept that evil finds its ultimate cause in matter, finiteness, or in individuality. It is not intrinsically necessary for matter, finiteness or individuality to result in moral and natural evil. The biblical record tells us that the evil around us is something outside of, contrary to, different from, and an aberration on that kind of world which would correspond to the creation purpose of God. While I fully accept that "the creation 'as it comes from the hand of God' is good and free from evil", I have a problem with the inclusion of "natural evil" in the statement above. The implication is that "natural evil" is somehow independent of God's creative activity. Events such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc are part of the dynamic processes through which God is continually active in the creation. They are part of the creative processes that have made the life-sustaining creation that God declared good. Similarly the cycle of life and death that is part and parcel of the web of life on Earth is essential for the sustaining of that life. That cycle of life and death is also explicitly a part of God's upholding of creation (see Psalm 104). Keith To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 4 00:00:11 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 04 2008 - 00:00:11 EDT