NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/bit/listserv/christia/18967

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 7.1 KB | 170 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Subject: (no subject given)
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!ASUACAD.BITNET!FOCMCB
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Approved: [e-mail]
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:35:40 MST
Sender:       CHRISTIA@ASUACAD
From:         Usenet/Netnews Moderator <[e-mail]>
Lines: 158

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>From: [e-mail] (G.J. McCaughan)
>Subject: Re: (no subject given)
>Organization: U of Cambridge, England
>Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:09:10 GMT

In article <111010034836277EMU0000@eagle>,
cartnaj <[e-mail]> writes:
> ===========================================================
> Message Forwarded by cartnaj ([e-mail]):
> ===========================================================

Just for the record, the mail message Joe quotes here was private mail rather
than a post to CHRISTIA. In this case I don't mind having it quoted, and I
know
it's an easy mistake to make; but be careful...

The reason why I sent private mail rather than posting to Christia was that
discussions about evolution tend to be rather unproductive; they can all too
easily degenerate into slanging matches. I'm afraid this post is going to be
a bit long; if I post further on this topic I shall restrict myself to saying
the minimum possible, and I suggest that others should do the same. Anyway...

> > Are you suggesting it is impossible to believe in evolution and in Christ
> > at the same time? I know from personal experience, and from that of many
> > of my friends, that it is possible. A few comments, on specific issues:
> >
> >  * ... then what is the basis for sin?
> >    Sin is the result of human pride, stupidity, arrogance; of the
delusion
> >    that we can be our own little Gods. This arrogance is partly an
in-built
> >    human thing, and partly the result of yielding to temptation.
>
> What about the "original sin"?  Death entered by one man - Adam.  Paul
speaks
> of Adam as a historical figure, as does Jesus in justifying marriage.  Now
was
> Adam historical or were they lying?  Paul also states that sin entered
through
> Adam.  This is why Jesus came.  How does this fit in with evolution?

Are you sure Jesus speaks of Adam as a historical figure? I assume you're
talking about Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-8, but neither mentions Adam and
neither says anything about *how* God "made them at the beginning".

There are other possibilities besides being correct and lying, as has been
mentioned in the recent flame-wars about Pat Robertson. Paul could have been
wrong; he could have been speaking metaphorically; he could have been going
along with something he didn't believe for the purposes of argument or of
illustration (compare his remarks about "baptising for the dead").

Jesus came to deal with our sin. Not even the most die-hard evolutionist
would
deny that we sin, nor that sin is a problem that needs dealing with.

> >
> >    Perhaps I don't understand your question; I don't see how evolution
has
> >    anything much to do with this. (I believe that we are a fallen race,
by
> >    the way. Evolution concerns the question of how people "got here", not
> >    what happened once they did.)
> >
> Genesis deals with how we got here.  Doesn't sound like evolution to me.
Why
> are we a fallen race?  Did we just evolve that way?  Where is the rebellion
> against God in that?

Only a couple of chapters of Genesis deal with how we got here. They
contradict
each other, if taken as historical accounts. This is a problem.

Belief in evolution does not imply rejection of the Genesis account of the
fall of man. However, even if it did there's plenty of rebellion against God
in every human's everyday life.

> >  * Genesis is the foundation of Christian doctrine.
> >    Come, now. Important, certainly; but if you're going to take one book
> >    as the foundation for our doctrine, I'd have thought maybe Romans or
> >    John's gospel or something?
>
> The books you mentioned are founded on the assumption that Genesis is true
and
> historical.  That God created us is the reason He demands obedience.

No more than they are founded on the assumption that any other book of the
Bible
is true and historical; that is, you could equally say that "1 Chronicles is
the
foundation of Christian doctrine". I think calling Genesis THE foundation is
a
bit much, that's all.

Evolution does not imply that God didn't create us. Just that he didn't do it
"all at once". (Incidentally, I wouldn't dream of denying that God could have
created us in a flash with no intervening evolutionary stuff, if he'd wanted
to do so.)

I think God demands obedience for other reasons as well as the mere fact that
he created us; because he's perfect, for instance. If I could somehow create
an
intelligent being out of nowhere, that would not in itself give me the right
to
tell it what to do. Er, basically I think that what gives God the right to
tell
us what to do is the fact that he is God, which involves more than the fact
that
he created us.

> >  * the lies of evolution which give the grounds for legalizing abortion
> >    I don't see this at all. Doubtless people who want abortion legal can
> >    misapply the theory of evolution to suggest that people are no more
> >    than animals, or something (though I don't in fact see this done); but
> >    that's no more an argument against evolution than the anti-semitism of
> >    some Christians in the past is an argument against Christianity.
> >
> >
> > I hope I don't seem too combative here; I probably haven't expressed
myself
> > very well. But I don't like this suggestion that evolution is an
inherently
> > evil, atheist idea: perhaps it's false, but I will need a lot more
evidence
> > before admitting that it is as evil as is sometimes made out.
> > --
> Not atheistic inherently, but certainly unbiblical.

It is true that the most obvious reading of Genesis is that man was created
over a period not exceeding 24 hours, with no evolution in sight. However,
the most obvious reading of Genesis is that man was created after the
animals,
and that man was also created before the animals. Clearly there is something
funny going on here.

You're probably coming to the conclusion that I'm a desperate heretic. I
don't
think this is the case. I accept that all Scripture is inspired, but don't
see
that this requires every sentence of it to be true with the first
interpretation
that comes into one's head, which is what some people seem to believe. If you
can give decent explanations for all the trivial apparent inaccuracies, then
I
will probably change my mind on this; but I've been looking for explanations
for
a while, and haven't found them yet.

In any case, you haven't answered the main point I was trying to make:
namely,
that belief in evolution does NOT lead to acceptance of abortion and such,
and
that it is not inherently evil.

--
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
[e-mail]  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]