Why must evolution be the only explanation that makes sense with regard to the fall? If we were to explain away millennial conditions by virtue of evolution, then we’d have to wait quite a long season for the lion to evolve into the kind of creature that can lay down with the lamb, in which case it would probably no longer be a lion–or at least the kind of lion that charges that particular prophecy with meaning. “And the fierce carnivorous lion, after it has evolved into a gentle herbivore, shall lie down with lamb” doesn’t cut it metaphorically. It’s gotta have teeth and claws for that prophecy to have any significance at all.
Now I don’t have a problem with evolution per se. In fact, I rather like the idea of God allowing as much participation as possible on the part of all living things, no matter how seemingly insignificant, in the developement process of creation. It’s just that I side with Galileo on the purpose of the scriptures. They are not a scientific treatise! Nor do they, IMO, serve as a companion to the sciences. They must be read on their own terms–with or without any justification from the sciences.
I just crashed through my soap box.]]>
If Adam was cast out of the garden and entered into the L.A.D.W., then that would suggest that both states co-existed.
Death existed outside the garden and Adam and Eve had their lifetime memberships revoked.]]>
So the need for the Atonement does not magically vanish if the story of the Fall isn’t really historical, or the reality is somewhat different from the standard story.]]>
I suppose the anology of the sun rising and falling will fail at some point in this discussion. But to stretch it a little further–
Because the sun’s rise and fall may be observed and therefore predicted, it does not necessarily follow that the observer will construct a correct model as to why or how it rises and falls. Certainly, We’ve got a better handle on the “why” today than we did a thousand years ago thanks to the likes of Copernicus and others–though something like gravity must, at this point, still remain in the abstract.
The shift from a geocentric model to a heliocentric model is huge! Now I realize that scientists must work from a set of assumptions to make any headway. But, as a non-scientist, it seems to me that all too often the scientific community will rush to “connect the dots” without considering more carefully whether there may be more dots to be discovered which may significantly alter the logical path of connection thereby revealing an entirely new matrix.
So it is with evolution. Scientists (some, at least) tend to proceed with the notion that such difficult questions as the origin of life or the bases of consciousness will ultimately be answered by further research in evolution and related studies. That’s incredibly presumptuous if you ask me.]]>
Well yes, but the claims of evolution are now highly observable and predictable. Now we can make a distinction between predictions by lay folks and those by scientists in a particular field. I’m not sure that’s helpful.
As for “self-evident” I tend to be dubious that anything is self-evident. What we typically mean is that in terms of the theories we hold to (whether scientific or folk) we can quickly interpret a phenomena. Certainly a lot of phenomena can be correctly interpreted by folk theories. Others can’t.
I’m afraid I’m not quite sure that matters too much though.
For my own part, I find just as much presumptuousness on the part of hard-core Darwinists as I do from orthodox Creationists.
I admit I don’t quite understand that view since it seems to me that the evolutionists can point to evidence for their views whereas Creationists really can’t. (Beyond a particular reading of scripture)
I’d avoid the name Darwinist though since modern evolution has about as much in common with Darwin as modern cosmology does with Newton.]]>
I’d expect the whole scientific community to accept uniformitarianism, hence why I said “there’s probebly no way to prove it, but I think it’s a possibility.” If I was a scientist I’d assume the same thing in my research.
Makes sense. It wouldn’t change the order. My point was the time frame, like you said:)
Personally, I don’t think it’s so simple that all the earth’s processes all happened one way or the other, but a combination of both and possibly others.]]>