On Mon, 22 May 1995 16:49:59 +0930 you wrote:
>I am new to the mailing list, so I have only seen recent discussion,
>but it seems much of the dialog is on questions about different models
>of our origins. It is important to debate the evidence for and
>against each of these models, but equally important I think, are
>questions about the implications of each model on our understanding
>of theology and our interpretation of the bible.
Agreed.
>Crudely speaking, the following are a summary of possible models for
>our origins:
>
>1. Instantaneous Creationism, 6 days between universe creation and the
>creation of man.
OK. This is the normal view of Creation-Science.
>2. Long age of universe, 6 day instantaneous creation of vegetation,
>animals, man etc.
Is this Gap theory? ie. Gap between Gen 1:1 & 1:2. Not many hold this
today?
>3. Progressive creation. Long age of universe and long period of
>creation of vegetation, animals etc, but with instantaneous creations
>occurring at various timepoints over an extended period.
My view. Creations do not have to be "instantaneous". They could
involve some process. But decisive component is direct acts of God.
>4. Theistic evolution 1. A God-driven evolution-like mechanism of
>creation, where it is recognised that "divine energising" of the
>process is necessary for success.
As I understand it, God does not directly intervene. So-called
"natural" causes arte sufficient. IMHO this should be called Deistic
Evolution because the view of God it holds is nearer to Deism than
Theism.
>5. Theistic evolution 2. As with 1 except that God's involvement
>is more implicit. Ie, God sets up the evolutionary process but
>then stands back and watches it run. The process of our evolution
>can be described without referring to God, much in the same way as
>we can describe Newton's laws without referring to God.
See above. Suffers from "hidden gardener" problem.
>6. Atheistic evolution. We evolved and God plays no part in our
>origins.
Mainline Darwinism. Could also add 7. Agnostic Evolution, eg. T.H.
Huxley. "We don't know if there is a God or if he played a part in
evolution."
>I would be interested if anyone would like to refine, add-to and/or
>correct my summary of possible models. I personally feel the
>answer lies somewhere between 3 and 5, though exactly where, I'm
>not sure.
IMHO it is not just a scientific issue. Our view of mechanism will
reflect relative weighting we give to Biblical Theism vs Scientific
Naturalism.
>With each of these models, the following questions need to be asked:
>
>1. Does the concept of the fall of man fit with this model, and if
>so, how?
Existence of unique first man and woman fits better in 1-3 (FC-PC).
Seems inconsistent and "tacked on" for TE.
>2. What does the garden of Eden refer to?
The "garden of Eden"! <g>
>3. What does it mean to say that death came through Adam?
> Was death around before the fall?
PC (eg. Ramm, Ross, etc) believes Fall led to death of human beings
only. Death of animals ocurred before the fall.
>4. Is pain and death an inherent part of life? Was it so before
> the fall? If so, how could God's creation be described as
> "good"?
Lions eating prey is described as evidence of God's wisdom in Ps 104.
What is alternative? For all animals to grow old and die?
>5. What is someone's soul? Do animals have souls? What is the
> distinction between man and beast?
Both animals and man have the breath of life (Gn 2:7; 6:17; 7:15).
Man only was created in image of God (Gn 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6).
>Well I think these are good questions for starters.
That should keep us going for a while! <g>
>By the way, as I am new to the reflector, perhaps I should
>give a quick introduction. I am a Christian. I am currently
>doing a PhD in mathematics. I have had some contact with genetic
>algorithms and have a fairly good grasp of the mathematical issues
>involved. My knowledge of biology is limited. I have an interest
>in the nature of our origins as I believe it has an important
>relationship with Christian belief.
You an Glenn should get along well! Don't blame us lesser mathematical
mortals if we are less than impressed by abstract mathematical models
and computer "games of life"! <g>
Stephen