Adrian wrote:
>You seem to want to make a sharp distinction between the physical and the
>spiritual which I am uncomfortable with. You wish to allow for evolution to
>be the explanation for the emergence of the physical form and to have a
>entirely separate (spiritual?) process for the emergence of uniquely human
>capactities. Perhaps I am reading you wrong here.
It is helpful to approach such questions one step at a time. The original
issue as I understood it, was whether or not an evolutionary understanding
of the origin of the human physical form was in necessary conflict with a
fully orthodox and evangelical theology. I argue that it is, and that it
has been so understood by many prominant evangelical theologians since the
time of Darwin. You seem to make no rebuttal against that. Therefore, the
issue is NOT whether humans share a common ancestor with the great apes,
and have a genealogical relationship to all of creation.
Your questions deal rather with other related, but distinct issues. These
include: 1) whether humans should be viewed dualistically or monistically,
or in some other way, 2) the extent to which our moral capacities can be
explained by (or related to) our evolutionary history, 3) what is the
nature of the human soul and what is its origin, 4) whether scripture
demands that Adam be an historical individual, 5) whether Adam need be the
ancestor of all living humans (rahter than a representative head), and 6)
whether an historical Adam is necessary to uphold the doctrine of original
sin. These are all important questions.
I am convinced that the evidence supports common ancestry for all living
things including humans. I am open to the idea that or moral and spiritual
capacities have some connection to our physical brain (and thus its
evolution) but would deny a reductionist view (ala Donald MacKay's "nothing
buttery"). I also strongly lean toward the view that Adam was a
representative head (in a way parallel to Christ's headship of the church)
and not the ancestor of all living humans.
As I stated above, I believe that it is important to keep the issues
clearly in focus and not confuse them. Thus, it is inappropriate to use an
argument for the historicity of Adam as an argument against human
evolution.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 26 2002 - 10:16:16 EST