[DoctorMichael]

I will thoroughly peruse this article in the privacy of my chambers at a later date.

Bookmark Bump.

[curiosity]

This might interest you.

Someone should start a faith-and-science ping list.

[curiosity]

Here's a phrase that stands out it my mind:

'Thus the "literal interpretation" of Genesis I is that the creation of plants and animals is mediated, the elements having been given the power to "bring forth" these creatures when God so commands. Messenger has shown in his very useful book that this was the general understanding of Christian theologians up to the thirteenth century.45 The opinion that God created each "kind" in an act of direct and unmediated creation is unbiblical.'

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

This is silly.

[Junior]

I know you've already been pinged, but I needed a bookmark.

[betty boop]

PING!!! for further study....

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I just glanced at it, but one of the things that stuck out was his claim that creationism is against macro-evolution. It is true that some creationists feel that way. OTOH, others believe strongly that macro-evolution (if it exists - and thus far there appears to be less than compelling evidence for it) is part of the creationist schema.

As a point of fact, there is quite a diverse universe of views in the creationist world about evolutionism. Seemingly far more than the generally axiomatically lockstep viewpoint of the evolutionsts that creationists are wrong.

[Lionround]

I must admit I did not read the entire article. Now for my two scheckels worth. I don't see anywhere in Genesis where it says that each of the "seven days" in which God created were consecutive. Am I off in believing that there could not have been years, even thousands or millions of years between each day.

The only ananlogy I can relat it to is the following: I am in my basement "creating" a stained glass window. On Saturday (the first day) I put the frame together. I am busy Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. However, on Wednesday (the second day) I cut some of the pieces for the project. On the following Saturday (the third day) I start to put some of the pieces together and adjust the fit to adjust my lead usage. Well, you get the idea.

Am I off here?

[Dumb_Ox]

Odd how he cites C.S. Lewis on embryological recapitulation. Isn't such embryonic recapitulation mostly disbelieved now? Or has it progressed beyond the sketches of Haeckel?

Teilhard's work is the more attractive because he brings science into contact with a mature Christian spirituality.

Ha! De Chardrin, he of the metaphysics of wishful thinking. I have a hard time taking anybody seriously who takes the de Chardrin fad seriously.

There are of landmines the author neglects in favor of arguing with the straw-minds of pop-fundamentalism. I think his reflections on Original Sin and Death are very faulty. Sin gave a new and terrible meaning to Death? Well, I hate to break it to this guy, but death is damn terrible in itself.

I don't know if he's Catholic, but there is a theological precedent of a future event affecting something in the past: the Immaculate Conception, where Mary was specifically redeemed by the Cross at the time of her conception. And of course, the Redemption itself isn't bound by time. Reasoning from this, perhaps one could say that the first human sin had a retroactive effect on all creation.

But of the most concern to me is his inability to grapple with the precise content of (neo-?)Darwinism: Random mutations promote the survival of an individual of a species and its descendants. Darwinism does not understand this randomness as the kind one would find in a personal being's choices, as God is arbitrary because He has will(arbitrio in Latin). Instead, by "randomness" they mean "chaos." The Darwinian universe is a Heraclitean Flux in which everything flows and nothing abides.

He touches on nominalism by pooh-poohing it, but in fact Darwinian evolution tends to support nominalism by undermining any idea of a stable nature in living things. The effects on the Incarnation, of course, are obvious, for there is no human "nature" for Christ to assume. Likewise, there are no inherent human rights, because humanity is simply the label for a thing-in-flux, namely the genetic code among the human species. I believe Darwinian interpretations can even destroy the place of human reason, with enough bad philosophy.

I'm curious about the mention of how Darwinism undermines Soviet biology. Marx wanted to dedicate one of his works to Darwin, but the latter declined because the former's patent atheism might have scandalized his wife. Frankly, the idea of a species-in-flux and the struggle-for-existence easily feed into Marxist ideology. an individual person might not be completely malleable, but over time and with advanced genetic engineering techniques, the species as a whole is certainly plastic. Watch for a resurrection of this idea in the Transhumanist movement.

[wallcrawlr]

Written by GEORGE L. MURPHY from St. Mark Lutheran Church

http://www.stmark-lutheran.org/

No surprise...this is another fine example of the instruction the flock receives at the Embarrasment to Lutheran Congregations Association (ELCA).

Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info

[johnnyb_61820]

The best defence of evolution from a theological standpoint, yet it falls short in many areas, specifically ignoring many, many texts from Genesis.

(1) there was no carnivory before the fall -- animals were given plants to eat. The fossil record shows that animals were already eating animals
(2) it was said that before the fall, creation was "Very good", yet we see Dinosaurs with cancer
(3) the sequence of creation is wrong from an evolutionary standpoint
(4) the timing is off -- in Exodus it is quite clear when God said "in six days" that he was not talking figuratively.
(5) the fact of mediation does not imply evolution, specifically since it has kinds, which are then re-gathered during the flood
(6) it leaves no room for the biblical flood in the fossil record. Did a worldwide catastrophe leave no mark?
(7) it still leaves the "soulless hominid" theory intact, which says that man was making tools and war with each other long before Adam. This can't be labelled as "very good".

I fear that the author is ignoring a whole host of evidence that says that special creation is what occurred, as well as the flood. Specifically, that within proposed created kinds there is still widespread hybridization possible, while outside of these kinds there is not. Also it is missing that much of the genome is geared towards modifying itself in adverse situations. Also it misses the "code" aspect of DNA -- that the code specified within the DNA is separated from the DNA itself the same way that any medium is separate from the message it carries. Couple that with the fact that there are a message-reading and message-carrying-out device attached, and there is almost nothing left to believe that nature created us.

So what of the fossil record? It is the burial ground of the flood -- the testament to God's judgment on the world.

[MortMan]

Bookmark

[nonsporting]

The opinion that God created each "kind" in an act of direct and unmediated creation is unbiblical.'

Genesis 1:21 "And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that is was good."

Genesis 1:25 "And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

How "Biblical" can you get?

[curiosity]

Theistic evolution ping.

[Varda]

bump for later read