>But let me turn the point around. Recently, while driving back to Madison
>from Chicago, I heard Henry Morris on a Chicago Christian radio station
>"explain" the metaphysics behind evolution science. He traced
>"evolutionary" models from Darwin, to the Greeks and then to the Babylonians
>(it was interesting to note that he excluded the vitalism of Augustine and
>other Christian thinkers). Morris said that according to Babylonian
>mythology, everything emanated from water and is akin to an evolutionary
>model of origins. Then he made the astounding leap to explain how Satan was
>the originator of this model. He suggested that since angels were created
>on the first day (he cited Psalm 104 for this), Satan was present in the
>world when it was covered with water. Satan, according to Morris, raised
>his head and looked around and seeing only God and water, and not being
>willing to acknowledge his origin in God, attributed it to the water. Thus,
>we have the origins of Satan's role in the current model of evolution.
>
>Phew, and evolutionists are criticised for their stories!
And Steve Jones responded:
>If Morris presented this as fact, rather than identifying it as speculation
>then he should be "criticised" too.
I wanted to see if I could track down this assertion, to determine whether it
was an "astounding leap," or permissible theological speculation.
I found the answer in Morris's The Long War Against God (Baker, 1989). He has
a detailed passage on the very item Steve Clark is troubled about.
To answer Steve Jones, Morris does not present this as dogma. At the close of
the passage he states, "Since much of this scenario is inferential, it is not
presented dogmatically." [pg. 260]
As to the speculation itself, I find it fascinating, and not at all
"astounding." If we believe what the Bible says about Satan, there is no
question he has been at work through the ages in the affairs of men. Are we
really so smug to believe he has no plans regarding modern man? Even plans for
the man of science? Somehow, I think C.S. Lewis would affirm, as he did with
Screwtape, that if this is man's attitude it is Satan's greatest achievement.
Anyway, Morris's point is simply this: How could Lucifer, a creation of God,
possibly think he could ever vanquish his Creator? Morris proposes as the most
rational inference that Lucifer did NOT really believe God was his Creator.
Well if not God, then who? Or what? Evolution, of course, out of some watery
beginnings (and biblical passages, including Psalm 104, are cited).
What makes this such an "astounding" speculation? It is theology, and Morris
admits it is speculative. But "astounding"? Outside the realm of the possible?
As I thought about it, it seems only a firmly naturalistic mindset would have
trouble with this. But we must examine our biases carefully before reaching
conclusions. And rather than labelling Morris's idea as far out, we should
approach it theologically and openly.
Taking the hypothesis as presented by Morris, I find it imaginative and
intriguing, with no great theological flaw, or flaw in logic. It is certainly
on firmer footing than, e.g., Sagan's "all there ever was, is and will be"
cosmos.
Jim