On Mon, 6 Jan 1997 16:27:07 -0500 (EST), Travis E. Doane wrote:
TD>Hello and God Bless to everyone on the evolution list.
>This is my first post, so I will follow protocol and tell you a
>little about myself. I am a student at Radford University in
>Southwest Virginia. I became a Christian during the summer between
>High School and College and became actively involved with a student
>Christian organization.
Welcome Travis! :-)
TD>About a year and a half ago, I attended a national conference of
>the parent ministry which oversees our on-campus church. During
>that time, a pastor held a seminar on creation/evolution from the
>YEC perspective and, unfortunately, I fell for it hook, line, and
>sinker. For the next year I began held firmly to the YEC
>viewpoint, even engaging in internet debates with biology and
>anthropology professors.
That's OK. Its how we learn.
TD>My faith in the young earth view was first challenged when I read
>Alan Hayward's Creation/Evolution. I tried with all my might to
>find material to refute Hayward and his old earth view, but I just
>could not find anything credible. But what impacted me the most
>was when it became clear that YEC's, whom I had put my complete
>trust in, were playing fast and loose with the facts and bearing
>false witness against evolutionary scientists.
This is too simplistic. While some YECs might be "playing fast and
loose with the facts" and even "bearing false witness against
evolutionary scientists", most are probably sincerely wrong. Just
remember how you were. If you believe: 1. that the Bible is the word
of God; and 2. it says that the earth was created in 6 x 24-hour
days; then 3. any "facts" that say it developed over 4.6 billion
years, must be wrong. The problem is assumption 2.
TD>As of right now, I am still undecided as to what my position
>actually is. I'm wavering between a progressive creation and
>Theistic Evolution viewpoint.
May I suggest you consider a Mediate Creation viewpoint? Mediate
Creation would accept that God can work *both* mediately through
natural causes and immediately supernaturally. The transitions
claimed by evolution may have happened, but they may not
all necessarily have happened by God working mediately through
natural causes. Just as the miracle in the ten plagues of Egypt (Ex
8:1ff) may have been ordinary natural causes occurring with
extraordinarily unnatural *sequence* and *timing*, so the crucial
steps in natural history (eg. origin of life, origin of
eukaryotes, fish-amphibian transition, mammal-reptile transition,
ape-Homo sapiens transitions, etc) may have ocurred, but not be the
result of any plausible *fully* naturalistic mechanism.
For example, ponder the following excerpt from an interview with
eminent French physician, mathematician and philosopher, the late Dr
Marcel Schutzenberger (a non-theist):
"Interviewer. "The appearance of human beings is that a miracle, in
the sense you mean?
"Schutzenberger. `Naturally. And here it does seem that there are
voices among contemporary biologists I mean voices other than mine
who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm that has dominated
discussion for the past twenty years. Gradualists and saltationists
alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of
the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems
that distinguish human beings from the higher primates: bipedalism,
with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and, without a
doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with fingerprints
conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of the
pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central
nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes,
permitting the specific recognition of speech. From the point of
view of embryogenesis, these anatomical systems are completely
different from one another. Each modification constitutes a gift, a
bequest from a primate family to its descendants. It is astonishing
that these gifts should have developed simultaneously. Some
biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome. Can anyone
actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually
existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is
that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy."
(Interview: Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger: "The Miracles of
Darwinism", Origins & Design", 17.2)
TD>But one thing I have determined is that dogmatic creationists,
>especially young earthers, are doing a great disservice to
>Christianity by putting up unnecessary barriers between believers
>and unbelievers.
Maybe. But I have heard religious liberals use this same kind
of argument against preaching the gospel. YECs for all their faults
may still be doing more good than harm. God still might prefer
their approach than the TE one of accommodation (Rev 3:16).
TD>I will probably not be a very vocal participant on this list, since
>I have a fairly heavy class schedule this semester. Also, I don't
>have any particular position to advocate. Any posts on my part
>will probably consist of me asking questions that I need answered
>in order to come to some final conclusion on the whole origins
>issue.
OK, but maybe there is no "final conclusion on the whole origins
issue"? :-)
TD>Well, enough about me. On to the first question.
>
>I've read Dick Fischer's "The Origins Solution" and am hoping to
>get a copy of Glenn Morton's book as soon as I can, (I've checked
>out his web site and found it fascinating). I admire both of these
>men for their attempts to reconcile science and the Bible, but I
>have problems with both of their views, particularly in regards to
>Adam and Noah.
That's putting it mildy as far as "Glenn Morton" is concerned! :-)
TD>Mr. Fischer presents the case that Adam lived about 7,000 years
>ago and is not the biological father of the human race.
I haven't heard of "Dick Fischer's `The Origins Solution'" and while
I don't necessarily advocate his view that that "Adam lived about
7,000 years ago" or that he "is not the biological father of the
human race", I would not rule it out as a possible solution. IMHO
Adam only need to be the *representative* father of "father of the
human race". It might be surprising that nowehere does the Bible
actually say that Adam was "the biological father of the human
race." Kidner points out:
"Again, it may be significant that, with one possible exception, 1
the unity of mankind 'in Adam' and our common status as sinners
through his offence are expressed in Scripture in terms not of
heredity but simply of solidarity. We nowhere find applied to us
any argument from physical descent such as that of Hebrews 7:9,10
(where Levi shares in Abraham's act through being 'still in the
loins of his ancestor') . Rather, Adam's sin is shown to have
implicated all men because he was the federal head of humanity,
somewhat as in Christ's death 'one died for all, therefore all died'
(2 Cor. 5:14). Paternity plays no part in making Adam 'the figure
of him that was to come' (Rom. 5:14)." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An
Introduction and Commentary" , 1967, p30)
TD>The problem I have with this view is that this seems to make the
>virgin birth of Christ unnecessary. From what I've read of
>standard theology, it was necessary for Christ to be born of a
>virgin so that he would not have the sinful nature that Adam passed
>on to all his descendants. If one accepts Fischer's view, this was
>unnecessary and there would be nothing wrong with accepting the
>virgin birth as some sort of allegorical teaching and not
>necessarily a historical fact.
Well if this is what the "virgin birth of Christ" was necessary for,
then, it failed. Mary was a sinner and Jesus inherited her sinful
nature:
"Many theologians say Christ's sinlessness required the virgin birth,
but the effort is weak on several counts. First, a "traducian" theory of
the soul is required; a theory, namely, that the soul of a child is not
immediately created by God, but is derived from its parents by
ordinary generation. Such a theory is pure speculation; the Bible
nowhere tells how the soul is formed. Second, the apostles trace
Christ's sinlessness to His holy life, not to His miraculous birth; and
the judgment of the apostles is normative for the church. Third, the
science of genetics has found that hereditary traits come from the
mother as well as the father. Thus, the virgin birth would not, of
itself, secure Christ's human nature from pollution." (Carnell E.J.,
"The Case for biblical Christianity", Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI,
1969, p141).
The fact is that the Bible nowhere says *why* Jesus was
born of a virgin:
"The Bible says that Christ was born of a virgin, but it does not say
why. This silence has encouraged theologians to compose reasons of
their own. These reasons, at times, are more ingenious than wise."
(Carnell, 1969, p141).
TD>Mr. Morton believes that Adam was, indeed, the father of the human
>race, and that he was an early hominid, in fact, the first hominid.
>I don't really have a problem with that, but what I do find hard to
>accept is his position that Noah, too, was an early hominid who
>lived not long after Adam. He places the date of the flood at
>around 5 million years ago, and it seems that the most advanced
>hominid that could possibly have lived around that time was Homo
>Erectus.
In fact it could not even be Homo erectus. The Fossil Hominid FAQ on
talk.origins says:
"H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago".
TD>I find it a little hard to believe that even Homo Erectus
>could have built anything as sophisticated as the ark.
This is the understatment of the year! Glenn posts quote after quote
showing that early Homo at 2 mya could make planks of wood, etc.
This actually refutes his view that Noah built a 3-decker ark 5.5
mya. The following newspaper article of 2.5 million years old
tools only underlines this:
--------------------------------------------------------
Dawn of cutting edge
The world's oldest tools - a cache of hammer stones and rudimentary
knives about 2.5 million years old-have been found in Ethiopia.
Anthropologists unearthed 3000 sharp-edged, stone-cutting tools used,
perhaps, to sharpen sticks or cut meat, and battered cobbles that could
have been used to crack shells or bones.
They said the mysterious pre-human creatures who fashioned the
implements were "surprisingly sophisticated" tool-makers.
The tools' find pushed back the origins of technology by at least 250,000
years, the scientists said.
"Dawn of cutting edge", The West Australian, Friday January 24, 1997,
p1)--------------------------------------------------------
TD>And so I am wondering about the possibility of combining these
>views, making Adam the first hominid and the true biological father
>of the human race, but placing the date of the flood and Noah
>recently, within the last few thousand years. This would seem to
>clear up some problems, (although the genealogy between Adam and
>Noah could not, or course, be taken absolutely literally).
This would mean a 4 million-year gap between Genesis 1 and 7.
Besides the emerging consensus is the `Out of Africa Theory' that
all Homo sapiens emerged from an unkown common ancestor in the last
40,000 years. Thus the "first hominids" may have had little
or nothing whatever to do with the ancestry of modern humans, so
most of Glenn's evidence may be irrelevant.
I think Hugh Ross is on the right track in positing an Old-earth/
young Adam position, although I don't agree with everything he
writes. There is an emerging convergence between the Biblical
picture and the scientific one. It may be that the Biblical
genealogies are being stretched back a bit, but the scientfic dates
are all coming forward. Homo sapiens is astonishingly recent.
IMHO, somewhere in the middle will be the truth. At the end of the
day, the Bible and science will be seen to be in broad agreement.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------