>The Heb word for "subdue" in Gn 1:28 is very strong:
(This was in the very last line of your post. Then I noticed the colon and
the missing signature. Did something get cutoff? Were you perhaps trying
to send a lexicon definition that might have had a strange character in
it?)
Anyway, I would expect it to be strong. When God trains men, if indeed
that's what He's doing, He doesn't pull any punches. To be a perfect
training environment, earth would _have_ to be challenging.
With regard to the definition of evolution: Stephen holds the position
many (perhaps most) creationists do. I can understand why he does. In
response to that definition or perhaps some other proposed approach to
defusing the conflict, Phil said, "Why then there wouldn't be anything to
fight over," when he was at Calvin College a few weeks ago. Phil is right
that as Christians we can't just roll over and accept the metaphysical
baggage that often comes with evolution. There are at least two strategies
to not accepting it, however:
1) Insist on the creationist definition of evolution (common descent) and
attack evolution; 2) Accept the geneticists' definition of evolution and
point out unjustified metaphysical assumptions when they are stated or
implied. I'm not saying I categorically reject common descent. I don't,
so long as it is recognized that Divine direction cannot be ruled out
scientifically, and is absolutely required by Scripture, which we know by
the testimony of the Holy Spirit to be true. I'm just saying that the
leaders of the evolution research field have focused on genetics, probably
because it's something a rigorous research program can be built around.
Fine. Let them have their definition, and when they engage in flights of
fancy ala Dawkins, point out the difficulty of supporting Dawkins' views
from the very limited foundation they are built on.
Why do I make an issue of this? Well, Stephen, imagine yourself in the
midst of a challenge you probably have had to deal with at one time or
another: a disease that could become an epidemic. You have to make vaccine
available, if it's available, possibly quaranteen affected people, and
possibly trace the source of the disease. All of these activities are
based on knowledge of the cause and transmission of the particular disease
involved. Now suppose a group of people show up and challenge your
proposed actions. Further suppose these people have no experience in
public health or the life sciences, and have never made any contributins of
their own to either field. How wuld you react? About like the people in
the evolution research community I suspect, because that is how they see
creationist attacks. My burden is to bring the Gospel to scientists and
intellectuals. It's difficult enough to bring the Gospel to _anyone_
without adding unnecessary challenges on issues that have no meaning to
nonChristians. So from my perspective the approach should be 1) Lead them
to Christ, assuring them if necessary that Christianity is not about the
age of the earth or about evolution but about Jesus Christ; 2) Once they
become Christians, then they must read Genesis with the Holy Spirit guiding
their interpretations. _Trust_ the Holy Spirit not to lead them astray.
I should add that Stephen (and Phil and others) keep harping on "Darwinian"
evolution. However, while most evolution researchers today revere Darwin
and will even call themselves Darwinians, I don't believe they have a
rigorous, consistent definition of Darwinism. Niles Eldredge is a good
example. He calls himself a Darwinian, but I doubt Dawkins would want to
accept him as a Darwinian. Even Dawkins rejects some of what Darwin
taught. Does that make him a nonDarwinian? I don't think it's a fruitful
line of attack to try to hold evolutionists to a definition they have no
concensus on.
Bill Hamilton
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill and Linda Hamilton
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148