George Murphy wrote:
> You confirm what I started with here, that there is no basis in revelation for
> belief in the unmediated creation of life. You can call that an "argument from silence"
> if you like.
That is what it is. And there is no basis in special revelation for belief in the wholly-mediated creation of
life either. (You have not provided any biblical evidence to that effect.) And that is all I have been trying to
show. Special revelation does not *support* macroevolution any more than it *supports* progressive creation. For
that reason, the question cannot be answered by appealing to Scripture. Since that is all I have been trying to
show, and since I don't expect you will be providing any further evidence for wholly-mediated macroevolution
from special revelation, I'm going to step out of this discussion.
> & I would not claim that Genesis 1 "proves" chemical evolution, let alone
> evolution in general. But the fact that many of the fathers understood it as meaning
> that God created the materials of the world with the capability of bringing forth living
> things when God wanted them brought forth, & that before any modern scientific theories,
> seems to me significant. But perhaps the theological opinions of the fathers carry no
> weight with you.
Let's put things in perspective. Your belief in divine mutability would be of **much** more concern to the
fathers than taking issue with a position held by a minority of the fathers about the mechanism of life's
formation. Those rejecting a fundamental theological belief held by virtually all the fathers are in no position
to criticize those questioning a very minor theological position held by less than a handful of the fathers.
I think this particular discussion has reached the point of diminishing returns, so I'm signing off. I tip my
hat to George for his willingness to explain and defend his position.
best,
- Bryan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 18 2000 - 12:32:55 EDT