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

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Thu Sep 04 2008 - 11:50:14 EDT

I can understand and respect the way in which those like Whiston argued for
seasons having a human cause though I find them entirely wrong. [I respect
all the theories of the earth of the late 17th century and regard them as
good attempts to understand the history of the earth and universe for their
day. Whiston et al despite his Arianism opened up the way for a Christian
acceptance of deep geological time and is probably a major reason why
geology did not cause a major problem. Here I am in line with Rudwick]

What I cannot understand are Wright's odd remarks on seasons which D
Opderdeck introduced to this forum. I find it very disconcerting.

As for God creating baseball or cricket I have severe doubts as both would
introduce a severe question about theodicy. Of the two I consider the latter
the most serious blot on creation, perhaps because I have rarely encountered
the former and intend to keep it that way. If I were God [which
.........................} I would not have created either.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <>
To: "AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation" <>; "Keith
Miller" <>; "Michael Roberts"
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] (fall) biological evolution and a literal Adam-logically

> The view that the seasons resulted from an event within human history--the
> Fall or the Flood are the usual suspects--is at least as old as the 17th
> century. William Whiston, e.g., assigned the cause to a comet, the one
> that
> caused the Flood. It seems to have been a popular view, apparently based
> on
> a very old Jewish tradition (as far as I can tell), that the creation of
> humanity took place at or around the autumnal equinox, and that in an
> ideal
> creation days and nights would be equal in length. Human sin, on this
> view,
> led to the inclination of the earth's axis.
> As I imply, I am not very familiar with the details; if there is a full
> history of this concept, I haven't seen it.
> What lies behind this, as far as I can tell, is the belief that paradise
> would not entail a changing world--not even one in which change is
> cyclical
> in fairly minor ways that may be beneficial, such as the seasons. But, I
> don't know.
> My own view is, that this view of perpetual spring (or fall), as it were,
> is related to the very old tradition, which I take as axiomatic, that God
> created baseball. That's almost self-evident, of course, but I have
> sometimes encountered people who doubt this, and I have heard of even a
> few
> who completely deny it. Everyone knows that God made the heavens and the
> earth "in the big inning," as the Scriptures say (and, Michael, please
> note
> that the Hebrew for "inning" here is explicitly in the singular, so that
> no
> competent exegete would conclude that the author really meant "innings,"
> i.e., cricket. After all, this was before the Fall, and that dreadful
> game
> appeared later as a corruption of the truth.
> Taking this fact and coupling it with a premise about natural
> theology--namely, that God's character and nature are revealed through the
> creation--and it is not difficult to prove that God is left-handed. But,
> that's for another day.
> Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 4 11:51:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 04 2008 - 11:51:42 EDT