1) In the third point in my original post on July 11 on the predecessor
to this thread, Re: Johnson// evolution implies atheism,
I qualified my remarks by stating, "…perhaps there are traces of [the
process of variation and selection] in salvation history…," offered
three examples, and again qualified by saying, "If these are not direct
connections, perhaps the processes are at least compatible." I question
whether this constitutes eisegesis, as Bryan seems to think. In trying
to detect the harmony between science and Scripture, we need some
latitude for speculation. If I have done this poorly, please refer me to
others who have more cogently considered survival of the fittest in
light of the teachings of Christ, and accept my apologies.
2) I believe Bryan, George and I have hit on an issue that needs to be
examined further. The implications and connections are large and many:
faith and works, internal and external motivation, social welfare/social
Darwinism/social justice, this year's elections, etc. I'll try setting
out some food for thought and see if anyone gets my drift and would like
to comment on how these concepts might relate to the science of origins.
If the thread dies or if I'm told it should be taken off-list, I won't
be offended. I'm trying not to eisegete or to carry the flag for Social
Darwinism, welfare-ism or any other humanly-concocted "-ism."
•"Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to
enter and will not be able." (Luke 13:24)
•"Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature…" (I Cor. 2:6a) [A
lady is said to have confronted a Christian scholar on a train during
the mid-1800s, saying, "Dr. (so-and-so), God doesn't need your
knowledge." The man replied, "No, ma'am, and he doesn't need your
ignorance either."]
•"Test everything; retain what is good." (I Thess. 5:21)
•An article in Christianity Today back around the mid-1960s was titled,
"How to Be a Better Christian by Really Trying." As I recall, it
challenged those who misapply the exhortation to "Let go and let God."
•Cf. the Syrophoenician woman in Matt. 15:21ff./Mark 7:24ff., and the
woman at the well in John 4. Jesus challenged the women, and they
responded.
Perhaps the parallel between God's action in creation and his action in
salvation is indeed survival of the fittest--as God defines fitness:
humility, integrity, responsibility, repentance, faith, love--all of
these being gifts of God (Ephesians 2:8-10). Only God can plant the seed
of eternal life, but by his grace we can break up our fallow ground. Ron
Davis, my New Testament prof at Crown College around 1972, said, "There
are enough warnings in the Bible to shake up the complacent, and enough
assurances to comfort the fearful." Jesus can rock the car out of the
rut and get it rolling.
I simply suggest that Scripture, including the NT, is not incompatible
with some sort of evolutionary process initiated and operated by God,
usually in accordance with his ordinary procedures which we call
science. Am I wrong? Am I restating the obvious?
Dan Eumurian
Bryan R. Cross wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > >
> > > BC: In special revelation, God is constantly helping the weak, lifting up the poor, deposing the
> >
> > > lofty. He often chooses those that seem most unfit, and therefore unexpected. He shows grace
> > > to those who do not deserve it. This mode of operation is directly contrary to that of
> > > Darwinian evolution, where the fittest are rewarded and the weakest are exterminated. There is
> > > no such thing as 'grace' in the Darwinian system, where rewards are based solely on merit. The
> > > line of the Messiah is 'contaminated' with Gentiles like Ruth and Rahab. The Beatitudes and
> > > the Sermon on the Mount extol the anti-Darwinian moral character, "blessed are the meek, turn
> > > the other cheek, give to him who asks", etc. It is quite safe to say that Christianity is
> > > completely antithetically to social Darwinism. Anyone who claims to find social Darwinism in
> > > God's actions described in special revelation is practicing eisegesis.
> >
> > Your analysis would be correct if natural selection were a matter of individuals
> > trying to "merit" survival by defeating enemies. In fact it's a matter of populations
> > being "selected" (note quotes) by environments, including unforseeable environmental
> > catastrophes. Gould has done a good job of emphasizing this.
>
> Whether it is individuals or populations, natural selection is not grace-based. Who survives? The
> strong. Of course the environment selects, but it doesn't select willy nilly; it selects the strong.
> Divine grace, however, historically selected the weak, the foolish, the undeserving, etc. This point
> is so obvious that it needs no defending.
>
> > Theologically, the significant thing about the evolutionary process is that life
> > develops out of conditions of privation, competition, & death - which of course is not
> > the way the conventional beneficent God of philosophical theism is supposed to work, &
> > why the process creates theodicy dilemmas for such theism. It is, however, coherent
> > with the character of the biblical God who creates life out of death (Exodus, exile &
> > return, justification of the ungodly), all centered on new creation out of God's own
> > participation in death. OTOH this is not a matter of God or believers simply being the
> > "fittest" who "survive" because God Incarnate gets killed along with the "losers" in the
> > process & is risen.
>
> With that last statement you show that there is no essential relation between mutation/natural
> selection and God's modus operandi viz-a-viz salvation history. With evolution the weak die and the
> strong survive; in redemptive history, the weak suffer and then the strong are brought down and the
> weak eventually triumph with divine aid. I never claimed that natural selection is not coherent with
> the character of the biblical God (nor did I claim that it is coherent). My point was that God's
> character as described in the Bible does not *support* His forming life by natural selection. That
> is because the character of God as described in the Bible is just as consistent with many other ways
> of creating, including de novo creation. (That is plain just from the fact that *something* had to
> be created de novo; therefore His character cannot be incompatible with de novo creation per se.)
> Therefore, the claim that the Bible presents a picture of God's character that *supports* evolution
> by natural selection is ludicrous. "Compatible with" means "supportive of" only if no other creation
> options are "compatible with" the character of God as presented in Scripture. Since many other
> creation-methods are compatible with the character of God as presented in Scripture, therefore the
> character of God as presented in Scripture does not *support* evolution by natural selection.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 18 2000 - 00:46:12 EDT