mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/07/86)
[ I *KNOW* this talks about evolution, and that I didn't include net.origins in the newsgroups; I read that once a long time ago, but it was worse than net.flame for people-bashing. If this gets big maybe I'll have to re- subscribe :-)] > In article <180@BMS-AT.UUCP> stuart@BMS-AT.UUCP writes: > > > > A christian does (should?) not accept Humanism because it tries to > > improve the human race without God. Trying to run our lives without > > consulting the manufacturer or His intructions is how we got > > into such a mess in the first place! > > Perhaps you can answer a question which has always puzzled me. Assuming > that you do not take everything in the bible literally (which would be > difficult, since some of it seems contradictory), why must you assume > that evolution is not part of God's plan. Whether he created us ten > seconds ago or ten million years ago isn't really relevant. What is > apparent is that evolution *seems* reasonable. Could it not be, therefore, > that evolution (or the appearence of evolution) is part of God's plan > as well? Or do you consider it a trick? > > -kee This brings to mind an interesting point in favor of viewing evolutionary theory seriously no matter what your beliefs as a Christian. Christians believe that you come to a knowledge of God through faith. A belief in the Christian God and (some variety of) Christian theology cannot be realized through intellectual means. (I realize that this is a strong statement, but I'm pretty sure "faith" is a basic tenet of Christianity.) If we could *prove*, objectively and beyond any doubt, that God exists and that Jesus of Nazereth was who he said he was, then we would all lose our freedom of choice. We would all automatically believe, since it would be irrefutable and undeniable (unless you also go around denying the existence of mountains, air, chairs, 747's, etc :-). So, since God wants us to exercise our free will and have faith, it would seem necessary that there be no way of proving, by any other means than personal faith, that he exists (apolgies to Anselm and his proof :-). Given this, it is difficult to see how you could make a case that the earth is only 4000 years old and that creatures exist today in the form that God made them (as in *>poof<*, an antelope). If it were true that we could examine the earth with our God- given intelligence and discover that the earth is only 4000 years old, and that it seems to have somehow come into existence in 6 days, this would go a long way to proving that the Bible is right, thus taking the burden off of our personal faith. Instead, we find that the earth appears to be several billion years old, and that the rise of life on it appears to have been a gradual and protracted process. (It is important to note, though, that the creation account given in Genesis does not contradict reason nor modern theory -- it is just nowhere near as precise and specific.) The explanation has been given before that, although we do find fossils and records of geoligic times long past, they are not "real." In other words, they were created during the 6 days to make the creation of the earth appear seamless. But, if God could and did decide to essentially lie to us by providing fossil bones of animals that never lived, why not just go through the process in the first place. Since time is nothing to God, from an eternal point of view what is the difference between the simulation of dinosaurs and austro- pithicenes living and actually having them do it? I've really been surprised in the past when Christians have tried to maintain that since God created everything, this theory of evolution *must* be either mistaken or a conscious attempt to mislead the faithful. Why must it be either one or the other? The prospect of our having come from an earth that took billions of years of careful preparation would, I would think, be as much of a sign of God's love for us as anything else. -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/08/86)
The chief difficulty with any monotheistic argument claiming that faith is a
necessity and that God conceals himself to preserve the possibility of
faithful belief is that he is supposed to have removed this possibility for
his *most* favored followers. If we take the Bible at face value, then the
Hebrews of the Exodus, all the Prophets, and the Disciples were all
presented with absolute proof of the existence of God, and therefore they
did not have "faith" in this sense. But surely they were the most blessed,
not the least; therefore faith cannot be said to be a necessity in any real
sense. This seems to me an unanswerable objection to the argument.
--
Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Certified Catholic Theologian
{ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg,frog}!hoptoad!tim (uucp)
hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
I keep calling spirits from the vasty deep, but all I get are their
answering machines.