RE: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)

Jim said:
"... and whether those would be natural or unnatural. "

If a human does it, does that mean it is not natural? Humans are part of nature, too. I understand natural vs. supernatural, but not sure of what you mean by natural vs. unnatural, unless "natural" in that definition means "untouched by humans."

I think it may be fair to say it is perfectly natural for humans to shape their own environment and destiny. That's what humans do, unlike most lower life-forms (lower life-forms do shape their environment somewhat by building nests, etc.).

...Bernie
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:55 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)

Hmmmm, I wonder if there might be missteps and blind alleys? ...and whether those would be natural or unnatural. JimA [Friend of ASA]

Dehler, Bernie wrote:

Suppose it is possible to further direct human evolution by way of genetic engineering. Would Christians oppose that on grounds that "we shouldn't play God?" Non-Christians could say it is not "playing God" but "playing human."

Think about the explosion of technology in just the last 50 years. If we take care of this planet and the Lord tarries, humans can stay on earth for a few million more- until the Sun dies out. Given the progress of humans in the last 50 years- just imagine what will be accomplished in the next 50, 100, 1,000, or 10,000 years!

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----

From: gmurphy10@neo.rr.com<mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> [mailto:gmurphy10@neo.rr.com]

Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:16 AM

To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>; Dehler, Bernie

Subject: Endgame (Was RE: [asa] Jerry Coyne's ...)

Bernie et al -

1st, the sentence of mine you quoted should have read:

"I am no expert on the biology but on general principles we CAN'T say that the "movie" of evolution would be completely different if it were run again (a la Gould's "Wonderful Life" analogy) since we in fact only get to watch one showing of it."

Then on your points. To start with, even on a Barthian view the "endgame" isn't simply humanity but humanity indwelt by God (i.e., Christ), & Eph.1:10 & Col.1:15-20 suggest that the endgame is in fact that union as a way to reconcile "all things" to God.

& humans being created in the image of God (whatever that means, & there is more than one possibility) doesn't necessarily exclude other species bearing the divine image, either independently of us or perhaps mediated through the Incarnation.

Shalom,

George

---- "Dehler wrote:

George said:

"I am no expert on the biology but on general principles we can say that the "movie" of evolution would be completely different if it were run again (a la Gould's "Wonderful Life" analogy) since we in fact only get to watch one showing of it."

We are assuming humans are the "end-game." What if biological evolution isn't done yet- what if we are like monkeys compared to the next creature which may (or is) emerging? And what about humans creating their own evolution with modern science- directing the human genome by writing into it once it is more fully understood?

Once scientists can write DNA, will Christians be the first in line trying to hold back scientific advancement because we are "made in God's image?"

...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 30 15:28:06 2009