Indeed, is a literal Adam a crucial point? It certainly seems so for YECs. And whether or not it is a majority view among TEs it is recognized as a valid view. Nothing in TE requires rejection of a literal Adam. So, if that is your sticking point, it is not a reason to reject TE.
"Liberal"? I agree that philosophically liberalism (and its cousin humanism) view each human person as an autonomous individual. That is one reason I am not comfortable with the term "liberal" to describe myself.
But getting back to what the nature of sin is--how would you describe it? How would your definition differ significantly from mine?
I would certainly agree that sin has had cultural repercussions. It changed the relationship between men and women for one thing; and it changed how humans viewed the non-human world, leading to the rampant exploitation of the nature that was given into our care.
But I see nothing in scripture to justify the view that sin had genetic repercusssions. I think this is reading into scripture something that is not there. To me, it has implications of moral nature being tied to ancestry--the sort of thinking that suggests, for example, that certain persons are born with the noble qualities that fit them for monarchy because of who their parents and grandparents were. It was a common idea that permeated aristocratic and feudal social orders. But it is hardly a biblical idea.
Again, other than the cursing of the ground that made agriculture a chore, there is nothing in scripture to suggest that non-human creation has been warped by sin. The extension of the curses of Genesis 3 to matters not touched on in scripture is characteristic of YEC hermeneutics and is, in my view, wholly unjustified.
Except for the word "genetic" I am in entire agreement with this view.
Human history is irrelevant to biological evolution. The earliest record of our species far predates the beginning of recorded human history. Historical development is a very different matter than biological evolution.
And biological evolution is not a matter of "progress" toward some unstated goal. All living species are equal in their "evolutionary progress".
Given the above, this is all philosophical nonsense. One does not have to buy into this nonsense to accept evolution. In fact, an accurate understanding of evolution tells us this is nonsense. Just as an accurate understanding of scripture does.
Exactly. Sin and salvation are matters of morality and grace. Biological evolution running in the background is totally irrelevant to these issues. You very much misunderstand TE if you think we need to conjoin our biological understanding of evolution with our biblical understanding of our broken relationship with God and our need for redemption. Evolution is neither an explanation of sin nor a substitute for grace.
I might note here, that just as YECism is marked by an extension of the Genesis curses far beyond what is described in scripture, it also extends the meaning of evolution far beyond what is meant by evolution in biology, ascribing to evolution moral and theological propositions that have nothing to do with biology.
The proposition that our moral nature is derived from our biological nature is one I find deeply disturbing. It is a prescription for dividing peoples on the basis of superficial biological distinctions e.g. apartheid.
Biblically AND biologically, there is no basis for such divisions or the ascription of any sort of moral superiority to any person on the basis of their genetic endowment.
Evolution does not speak of a progression of species. That is a complete misunderstanding of evolution.
So you assign the "brutality" of nature to the direct will of God. Why then raise the issue of nature's "brutality" as a reason to reject evolution? At least if one is not a believer, one has no problem with it. There is nothing to explain; that is just the way things are.
But a believer, whether accepting or rejecting of evolution still has to deal with why animals suffer in a world where a benevolent God could prevent it. Even more so, if you believe God is the direct agent of their suffering.
Are not all things that live alive? is this not similar to the matter of assigning superiority to some humans and giving them status on the basis of their presumed superior biology? Insects breathe just like you and I. Why dismiss them as "mere" insects as if these marvels of God's creating were to be despised? Have you ever studied the amazing features of an insect body? Have you ever contemplated the marvel of metamorphosis which is common in insects? Have you ever pondered the lives of social insects such as ants and bees? Or considered why God has apparently "an inordinate fondness for beetles"?
It amazes me that the supposed defenders of God as Creator often display either ignorance of the creation or worse a very negative attitude toward the things God made. We sang in Sunday School "God sees the little sparrow fall" and learned that "God loves the little things". Why on earth look down on the fascinating little creatures we call insects? Does God not love every creature in his creation?
Yes, God imparts life to everything that lives. So his "breath of life" is in everything that lives. Every cell engages in some form of respiration, even if it is anaerobic chemical respiration.
Do I understand you here? Insects are ruining human life? It would seem to me that we have been far more effective at ruining theirs.
He may have been wrong in his exact numbers but he was not wrong in principle. How is it that colonial ventures expanded agricultural areas? They didn't. The agricultural area was already there and was being cultivated by many indigenous peoples. European colonialism took over the agricultural areas of other peoples via the mechanisms Malthus named: war, plague and famine.
And don't get me started on GMOs.
We have a finite planet, of which only a small portion is arable. And our current human activities are accelerating the rapid decrease in agricultural territory. In Australia, whole rivers are turning to sand. The Sahara has been moving southward in West Africa for two decades and more. And now we are also encroaching on arable land from the seaward side as well through the warming of the ocean and the melting of glaciers and polar ice.
Even if GMOs were as benign as some believe, at best they can only marginally increase crop yields. They will still run into the finite limits of arable acreage.
And what of the habitats of other plants & animals? Every expansion of human habitat destroys that of other creatures. Do we not effectively wage war against other creatures? Do we not plague them with disease and starve them out of existence?
No, I don't see any error (other than possibly mathematical ones) in this aspect of Malthus' or Darwin's thinking.
What I do see is monstrous human egotism that has no respect for God's creation. The same egotism that led to sin in the first place is evident in the pursuit of GMOs for profit. We would seat ourselves in the throne of God and rebuild creation in our image.
And we will fail--to our hurt and to the hurt of all of created nature. And to the deep, deep sorrow of our Creator.
Upvote
0
