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

George -- not sure where you're going with the "corporate entity" idea.
While there's a corporateness to our eschatological future, it seems hard,
and dangerous, to suggest that there isn't also an ongoing preservation of
individual identity. To me, this is where the "omega point" starts to sound
just like Buddhism.

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:28 PM, <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:

> Certainly we can to some extent direct the course of human evolution, &
> have been trying to do so for quite a while. Plato's suggestion for the
> Guardians to manipulate secretly the results of competition for breeding is
> one example, & I've been told that in some Australian tribes the elders do
> just that. Of course being able to understand & impact the genome directly
> increases the possibilities greatly.
> That doesn't mean that our society in general has any better understanding
> of what future humans _should_ be than Plato!
>
> The phrase "playing God" is really pretty empty of serious theological
> content, as Ted Peters argues in his book with that title. It generally
> functions as a stop sign for people who are uncomfortable with particular
> technologies. The idea that we are to exercise _responsible_ (N.B.)
> dominion over creation means that in an important sense we are supposed to
> "play God" (though the phrase isn't ideal). The real question is, what God
> should we play - the One revealed in Christ or one of the more popular
> idols?
>
> Phil Hefner's concept of the human as "the created co-creator" can be
> hgelpful here - if used with care. Not everything we can accomplish can be
> called "co-creation" in the sense of cooperating with God in creation. It's
> only that if it's in accord with the will of God for creation. & again that
> will & purpose for creation is revealed most clearly in Christ.
>
> In addition, we should try to avoid getting sucked in by science fiction &
> a lot of pop speculation in which the future of humanity is seen as
> _individual_ superhumans with bulging skulls, super powers, &c. There's a
> lot to be said for Teilhard's idea that the future of evolution is a
> corporate entity, what Paul spoke of as the Body of Christ.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
> ---- "Dehler 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]
> > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 9:16 AM
> > To: 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 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.
>

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 17:44:39 2009