RE: [asa] promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution for Adam)

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue Dec 16 2008 - 14:33:06 EST

Hi Bernie,

 

You raise a fair question that has several possible solutions, I think.
Assuming Adam was patterned after evolved mankind, the making of Adam from
"dust" could either have been modified to remove impurities that would have
caused or allowed diseases, or Adam could have been made as a perfect
biological match to an adequately evolved, but somewhat disease-prone,
pre-Adamite - probably one with the Y-chromosome that others might see as a
biological father. In this latter case, both Adam's and Eve's health
could be tweaked along their walks in the Garden. The former case makes
more sense as why not fix those imperfections and make him whole from the
beginning, especially since Adam is seen to be made, essentially, one
molecule at a time from "dust".

 

The degree of wholeness regardless of the method seems to be part of the
plan for our Garden residents. I have always assumed that the Garden was
special enough to grant both Adam and Eve perpetual life, and perhaps all
that was within the garden, though eating seems to have been necessary. If
this were the case, the amount of negative entropy needed to maintain God's
special Garden is unimaginably trivial compared to the Big Bang requirement.

 

My purpose in making such a suggestion is to attempt to gain some hope in
understanding the purpose of having pre-Adamites, which their existence is
strongly inferred from evolution, which should not be removed from the
scriptural context in Gen 1. If we consider the possibility that out
there is life on, say, a billion planets (out of roughly 10^22 stars per the
HST), why not consider a few of these to have life forms that reach levels
of compassion, sympathy, respect, reverence, self-sacrifice, etc. If so,
it is not a stretch for me to find God taking interest in them and possibly
calling them beings in His likeness or image. Whether He engineered the
initial conditions to allow such development (not just complexity) or He has
Johnnies bouncing planet to planet with "apple seeds", is not critical,
though you might guess which way I lean here J. In the case of Earth,
however, we have the case of the gift of a "living soul" (KJV), which is far
more special still, of course.

 

I am only throwing out these M-Genesis ideas not to advocate them, but to
ascertain their plausibility with others. Putting science alongside
scripture is only a starting place for hermeneutics. New astronomy
discoveries suggest a real possibility for an actual observer, by the Hand
of God, to have had 6 fantastic days with God - perhaps he was gone only
from evening to morning times only. These travels back in time were
highlights of moments rightly attributed to God as the Creator and for,
mainly, that purpose.

 

Coope

 

 

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:26 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution
for Adam)

 

Hi Dick- the only reason why you can't go "all the way" with evolution-
common descent for humans, is because of the Bible, sounds like to me. Same
reason why people deny evolution- because of the Bible. However, I don't
think you realize how against science you are by thinking a new creation
could mix with "pre-Adamites." You give a hint that you are thinking about
it when you say "But for his offspring to have been biologically compatible
with evolved human beings is a stretch for me." I think you need to think
about that more- indeed, the stretch won't stretch that far. It's not a
stretch, but an impossible gap. it wouldn't work.

 

Coope said:
"I am curious why you are reluctant to favor biological compatibility with
pre Adamites? The creation of any fresh-baked life forms would be superior
in design only if they were compatible with their environment. Using the
same patterns found in DNA, etc., of the pre-Adamites would yield a
biologically sound body and, perhaps, mind. "

 

The pre-Adamites would have had cancer and all the other sicknesses, etc.
What exactly did this "new creation of Adam" bring to the table, DNA wise?
Did sickness and death hit the pre-Adamites before Adam? When you say "The
creation of any fresh-baked life forms would be superior in design only if
they were compatible with their environment" that "environment" means all
the messed-up genes that the pre-adamites had. as well as what we still have
today (pseudogenes).

 

.Bernie

 

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Cooper
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:35 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution
for Adam)

 

Hi Dick,

 

I am curious why you are reluctant to favor biological compatibility with
pre Adamites? The creation of any fresh-baked life forms would be superior
in design only if they were compatible with their environment. Using the
same patterns found in DNA, etc., of the pre-Adamites would yield a
biologically sound body and, perhaps, mind. Of course, a few enhancements
would be understandable if this new fresh-baked person would receive a
living soul and be given childhood status -- who wants just another loaf. J
I even suspect these enhancements gave Adam enough advance to be the first
to "till the ground", due to chronological evidence allowing generation gaps
some you gave in article, "In Search of the Historical Adam". [I enjoyed
your article and agree with most of it, though I'm no one with a big stick.
BTW, the link at the bottom of the page of part 1 does not work to get to
part 2.]

 

What I like about this compatibility idea is that it suggests the
possibility that His design allows all sorts of life forms to exist on
planets throughout the cosmos, but only where environments allow. Only on a
very few number of planets, probably, will life forms evolve to the level of
intelligent Homo Sapiens. If this grants them consideration to be involved
in God's plan for communion with Him, including possible eternal life, so
much the better. The dynamic evolutionary process, both beautiful and
harsh, becomes a powerful means to an important end, and all accomplished
with, essentially, only 4 forces and some energy to make His cosmos.
[Matter followed after energy cooled.]

 

Further, with compatible Homo Sapiens, it gives Cain more reason to fear,
assuming he saw the pre-Adamites as somewhat equal in intelligence, and a
way to marry and have children, without the need to rationalize incest.

 

 

Coope

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dick Fischer
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:25 PM
To: 'Dehler, Bernie'
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] promise trumps biology (accepting biological evolution
for Adam)

 

Hi Bernie:

 

Frankly, I don't have enough evidence at hand to put full faith in Adam's
creation. I lean toward that view: three separate accounts say he (Adam,
Atum, Adapa/Adamu) was created, he was long-lived according to Genesis and a
very special individual, and Eve is described as created from Adam. But for
his offspring to have been biologically compatible with evolved human beings
is a stretch for me. So I have reservations.

 

Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

www.genesisproclaimed.org

 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 16 14:33:57 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 16 2008 - 14:33:57 EST