I think two separate questions are involved that need
separated. On the one hand, there is the question of
whether creation of our physical bodies using only the
ordinary means of evolutionary processes poses any
problem for our understanding of Adam, original sin, etc. I
would affirm that the answer to this is no. I see no reason
why whether God took a body made via the process of
evolution or a body made directly from dirt or one made by
reassembling dry bones would make any difference in His
ability to give it a soul and tell it to mind the garden. This is
perhaps not a "purely evolutionary framework", but
biologically (not sociologically) it is probably
indistinguishable. Likewise, the integral relationship
between body and spirit would have to be created at some
point, whatever the means of creating the body.
A separate question is whether purely physical processes
can account for spirituality. As spirituality is not physical,
the answer seems to be no. However, this does not rule
out some sort of spiritual evolution according to
metaphysical laws, in parallel with physical evolution, nor
the possibility that a certain level of physical development
automatically entails spirituality according to some
metaphysical law. Neither of these have greater appeal for
me than the idea that God simply endowed spiritual
natures without the means of metaphysical law, but I do not
know of data that would test between these options.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand
Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G.
Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Adrian Teo <ateo@whitworth.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 11:50:17 -0800
>Hello Keith,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kbmill@ksu.edu [mailto:kbmill@ksu.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:02 AM
>> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Human origins and doctrine (was Definition of
"Species")
>>
>> Firstly, self-awareness and self-determination are very
>> abstract concepts.
>> How do you know that no other animal is self-aware?
This has
>> been debated
>> for years, and I don't see any clear objective way of
>> determining it. My
>> personal view is that at least some higher animals are
indeed
>> self-aware.
>
>The bottom line is that we will never know for certain if
nonhuman animals
>have these capacities or not, but we can be fairly certain
that they don't
>possess them in the same way we do. Instinctual factors
alone is able to
>account for observable behaviors even in higher primates.
While many experts
>would grant that these higher primates may have some
capacities that are
>precursors of morality, language, metacognition etc.,
nevertheless they are
>quite obviously rudimentary forms. The gap is huge no
matter which cognitive
>capacity one chooses to look at.
>
>> Secondly, what does moral accountability have to do
with the
>> origin of the
>> physical human form? I can see no reason why our
moral and spiritual
>> nature, or our relationship to God, has any direct
connection
>> to the origin
>> of our physical form. It seems clear to me that the
"image
>> of God" is tied
>> specifically to our covenant relationship to God. We are
God's
>> representatives, God's ambassadors to the rest of
Creation.
>
>My point is that the evolutionary account of the origin of
physical human
>form cannot explain the emergence of moral awareness
in humans. I think that
>God had to act in a special way, an unusual mode of
activity, to imbue these
>"soulish" capacities. So, I would say that there is no
*causal* connection
>between the physical human form and our moral capacity.
>
>However, to bring up a side issue, I would also argue that
our physicalness
>is an essential expression of imaging God. This is not to
say that God is
>physical, but to say that our bodies communicate the
essence of who we are.
>The only way that I know you truly exist as a person is
through your
>physical form. If (as I assume) the person is a unified
body and soul, then
>both body and soul TOGETHER image God. In fact, I
would go further to say
>(as Barth argued also, I think) that in some sense, being
created male and
>female TOGETHER images God. And only our physical
bodies expresses our
>maleness or femaleness. Furthermore, both the
Incarnation and the
>Resurrection (of Christ and of our bodies) attest to the
significance of the
>physical body. Therefore, I do think that the image is
necessarily tied to
>our physical nature.
>
>> Past and
>> contemporary evangelical theologians have seen no
necessary connection
>> between the manner in which our physical bodies were
created
>> and our being
>> made in the image of God.
>
>Not Barth, not JP Moreland, not Ray Anderson, Joel
Green, Nancy Murphy (just
>to name a few). And also, let's not forget the theologians
since the
>earliest days of Christianity who considered the person to
be a unity of
>body and soul - e.g. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras,
Augustine, Aquinas etc.
>Additionally, Catholic theology also affirms this unity. Thus
to say that
>the person is made in the image and likeness of God
necessarily implicates
>the physical body.
>
>> Lastly, evolution also affirms the unity of humankind.
People like
>> Warfield used evolution as a strong argument against
>> polygenism (multiple
>> human origins) and racism (see the discussion of
Warfield in "Darwin's
>> Forgotten Defenders"). Furthermore, many of those
accepting human
>> evolution, both past and present, also fully accepted the
>> historicity of
>> Adam. Whether the historicity of Adam is necessary for
the
>> doctrine of
>> original sin is another question, but it can be
consistenly
>> held by those
>> accepting an evolutionary origin for the human physical
form.
>
>All of which I don't deny. I am NOT saying that Christian
evolutionists are
>necessarily any less orthodox in their theology than
others. But at this
>point, I fail to see how the doctrine of original sin can be
reconciled with
>a purely evolutionary framework that denies the special
creation of humans.
>The reason is because there is no satisfactory account of
how physical
>processes can lead to the emergence of our moral
capacity and
>self-determination, which are necessary for Adam to have
sinned.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 17:24:39 EST