Dave Probert wrote:
>>
I agree that evolution *is* compatible with Adam and Eve, however
the perceived age of the earth is *incompatible* with the genealogy given
for Adam, which is very specific with who begat who after how long.<<
So how come Luke 3:36 has an extra fellow, Cainan, in the Genealogy who is
not in Genesis. The extra fellow, as I understand it, is in the earliest
manuscripts of Luke. If Luke is correct then the genealogies are not
complete. I also believe that the Hebrews use of "begat" is much different
than our use of it. There are instances of people saying so-and-so begat
whoseit, but they were grandparent. I have often wondered if the term "Son
of Man" might have been a reference to being a descendent of Adam which then
is a skip of a bunch of generations. A better translation might be "Adam was
the ancestor of Seth," In a real sense, on the day my children were born, I
begat all my descendants. So I do not beleive that the genealogies are
complete. One can look at the dates of birth of the sons as the date the
actual son was born, but the name was a descendent. I beleive they are true
however.
Dave wrote:
>>Thus the Scripture is true. It is either the evidence that is wrong,
or my interpretation that is wrong.<<
Amen. I have most often found that it is my interpretation which was wrong.
It is really hard to change the scientific observations. i.e. raw facts.
Dave wrote:
>>If Genesis 1 were wrong because of one of the reasons you suggest, then
indeed the authority of Scripture is undermined. But given the ambiguities
involved, I don't think anybody should lose their faith over this. At worst
they should confess that they don't know what to think about creation.<<
That depends upon how one defines history. It is not unambiguous that the
plants were created before the sun. It is not unambiguous that whales were
created with the fish, yet whales are not found in the earliest rocks with
fish. Since creatures that crawl on the ground are not created for a couple
of days after the plants were created this would imply that there were no
insects when the plants were created. If this is true AND you beleive in an
old universe, you have a problem of explaining how plants fertilized each
other with no insects.
Dave writes:
>>If God's specific intervention was pre-planned (i.e. by virtue of his
omniscience, since He acts as if He was responding to us), then are
you suggesting it was carried out by what we perceive as `natural processes'?
The universe may be sensitive to the initial conditions, but I really
doubt that it is *that* sensitive. Plus if God could not control
every aspect of creation at any given time, then He would not be omnipotent.
So perhaps God's intervention would have to be defined as being somewhat
preplanned by setting the initial conditions for the natural processes,
but where subsequent events are insensitive to the initial conditions,
He intervenes again. This is too convoluted. I think it more likely
that He intervenes continually.<<
The existence of phase spaces gets you out of the problem you describe. The
phase space can be viewed analogically with a maze in which a rat runs. Cut
the olfactory nerves of the rat so he can't smell and release him in the
maze. The rat makes random choices of which path to take but eventually he
arrives at the cheese. His path is determined by him; his destination is
determined by the experimenter. In this way the experimenter controls the
ultimate outcome.
Phase spaces for nonlinear systems are just like that. There are limits, and
preferred paths. Random choices eventually will get you from point A to
point B in the phase space. Sierpinski's gasket is a simple example of a
phase space. The dot's direction of motion is purely by chance but the
outcome is determined.
You wrote:
>>(BTW, just because He `foreknew' us doesn't mean that He `preordained' us
to exist, in case you are heading in that direction.)<<
No, I was not heading in that direction. Until I studied nonlinear systems,
I was quite an Armenian in my theology. These systems, which unite free-will
and determinism into one mathematical object actually made me much more
Calvinistic than I used to be. God controls the ultimate outcome not
necessarily each individual choice. This makes me morally responsible for my
choices because they ARE my choices. God does not choose for me. This also
removes from the feet of God the charge that He is ultimately responsible for
the evil I do.
If I am governed by some grand set of nonlinear equations, then no matter
what my choices in life are, God will get out of my life what he needs in the
grand scheme of things. This is true whether I reject him or accept him.
God got out of Pharoah exactly what he needed. I can't see that I am any
different. We are all vessels for God's purposes.
glenn