Could this be similar to two people arguing over whether or not light is a
wave or a particle? Both people are equally right(wrong?) but are missing
out on the truth of the other side of the equation.
If mankind were merely a bundle of matter in time I could believe that
evolution is the truthful side of the creation equation. However, this is
not the case because we know that man has a soul and that is something
beyond what nature could ever produce. The body and the soul are equally a
part of man but they were created by entirely different means and combine to
form a complete? entity. There is a natural process as much as a
supernatural one. Nobody on this side of heaven will ever know which one
dominated the creative process at which time so why separate them into
particle or wave and completely miss out on the true beauty of the light?
And quite honestly I think the next big organism will evolve when our
"light" is transformed by the Light and we can see its true beauty and truly
be changed in kind.
I just wish evolution didn't take so long,
Ryan
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God
is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God
himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from
their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for
the old order of things has passed away." He who was seated on the throne
said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for
these words are trustworthy and true." He said to me: "It is done. I am the
Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will
give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who
overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my
son. -Rev. 21:3-7
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allan Harvey [ mailto:aharvey@boulder.nist.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 3:10 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: biology
>
>
> At 11:00 AM 1/13/00 -0800, Massie wrote:
> >David Campbell wrote:
>
> >> Complex eyes have evolved several different times.
> >********************
> >How about being accurate.
> >
> >"Complex eyes appear in the follil record at several
> different times.
> >Those who prefer to see evolution as the mechanism believe
> that this was
> >due to evolution and those who see a designer prefer to see
> his action
> >in this."
> >******************
>
> Let's be more accurate and point out that these are not mutually
> exclusive. Many of us see evolution as a means the Designer
> appears to
> have used to carry out his design, just as valid a means for God to
> create as ex nihilo creation of each species or sporadic supernatural
> insertion of new information.
>
> The more I see of these discussions, the more I'm convinced that the
> essential issue is the philosophical question (independent of the
> scientific question of whether the theory is right) of what evolution
> *means*. Richard Dawkins thinks it means God was absent. As
> Christians
> who know that God is never absent, we shouldn't be taking our
> philosophical cues from Richard Dawkins. We should recognize that
> evolution doesn't exclude God from being the creator of life any more
> than plate tectonics excludes God from being the creator of mountains.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
> | Dr. Allan H. Harvey |
> aharvey@boulder.nist.gov |
> | Physical and Chemical Properties Division | "Don't blame
> the |
> | National Institute of Standards & Technology | government
> for what I |
> | 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 | say, or vice
> versa." |
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 13 2000 - 16:49:03 EST