RE: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Date: Wed Jun 17 2009 - 15:10:41 EDT

"I hope that's short enough for you, Bernie."

Actually- I was hoping for much shorter.

So, just to be clear.

Some think Adam was made by fiat- all at once- not from anything pre-existing (except literal dirt). These think God literally scooped-up dirt, formed man, and breathed life into it. You would firmly deny this, correct?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:36 AM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

Bernie:

Asking whether "Adam" was created or evolved is the wrong question, because
the two are not necessarily incompatible. Unless you insist on taking
Genesis literally, evolution might have been the means of our creation. And
I thought I had already indicated that I didn't take Genesis literally.

The important question, from a religious point of view, is not "creation or
evolution", but whether "Adam" was designed or the product of blind chance.
I maintain -- despite the objections of many here -- that the entire raison
d'etre of the Darwinian form of evolution is to exclude design from the
actual world of nature, and that Darwinian evolution therefore depends
essentially upon chance. So let me put the question in this way:

Did "Adam", i.e., the first human being, whoever he was or whenever he
lived, arise solely or primarily through Darwinian means?

My answer: NO. I think that we have "design" written all over us. In
fact, I think the entire organic world has design written all over it, at
least in its general outline. Perfect design, with no accidental elements?
Not necessarily. Design that excludes the possibility of macroevolution?
No. But design, definitely. And I understand design not merely as some
here do -- as a personal theological gloss upon facts which, strictly
speaking, don't require design to explain them -- but as a genuine causal
factor, without which life as we know it would not exist. That is: no
design -- no life, no possibility of
macroevolution, and certainly no Adam.

That's the only sort of answer that you should care about, from a religious
point of view. But perhaps you are insisting on knowing my much less
important historical opinion about macroevolution and human origins? You'll
be disappointed in the answer.

Bottom line: (1) "Adam" was designed. (2) Darwinism is false. (3)
Everything else -- macroevolution, chemical origin of life, special
intervention, action under quantum indeterminacy, front-loading -- is
negotiable. I keep an open mind and weigh them all according to empirical
evidence, internal coherence, and general reasonableness. Thus, my position
is (Canadians here, note historical political allusion): macroevolution if
necessary, but not necessarily macroevolution.

I hope that's short enough for you, Bernie.

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:39 PM
Subject: [asa] Cameron- question of Adam

> Cameron- just a short question:
>
> Biologically- do you believe Adam was literally created by God scooping-up
> dirt and breathing life into him, or do you think he evolved from a lower
> life-form? Or was Adam biologically made some other way?
>
> Just a short answer please.
>
> ...Bernie
>
>
>
> 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 Wed Jun 17 15:10:57 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 17 2009 - 15:10:57 EDT