tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post283014499293881664..comments2024-03-24T11:03:03.106-07:00Comments on Just Genesis : The Creature After God's KindAlice C. Linsleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-7473665309988501672009-07-16T09:55:59.898-07:002009-07-16T09:55:59.898-07:00There is a tendency when we have trouble explainin...There is a tendency when we have trouble explaining things to divide or separate the spiritual and the material, but that also divides the work of Jesus Christ. The writers of teh Bible rejected this view, insisting that the soul (nephesh) and the living being wer a unity. So on the last day the dead shall rise and as our friend Job declares, see Him in the flesh.<br /><br />You raise a question that interests me greatly. You wrote: "I believe it is a mistake to preclude evolution 'from frog to camel' based on these visible categories, because they somehow seem more Platonic to me than scriptural. They seem like categories that we impose on the text, rather than draw from it."<br />I've been wondering why we assign the concept of Forms to Plato and never wonder about their antecedents. Did Plato invent this? I hardly think so. Much of Classical Civilization appears to be influenced by ancient African thought and practices, in particular through Egypt. I'm investigating this line of research at the present. <br /><br />As to the range of flux or evolutionary change, that's determined more on the genetic level than on the adaptation level and each genome has fixed boundaries beyond which the organism can't develop. There are anomalies, of course, but we recognize anomolies exactly because they depart from the norm.<br /><br />Again, another wonderfully stimulating comment, Mairnealach.Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-80486495971507648022009-07-16T05:48:45.926-07:002009-07-16T05:48:45.926-07:00Yes- competing definitions are an ostacle for us. ...Yes- competing definitions are an ostacle for us. For clarification then, I will try to use your own terms "essential change" and "flux".<br /><br />This is where we disagree: I believe that change from frog to camel is an example of flux, not essential change. Why do I say this?<br /><br />Firstly, because the scriptures do not define "essential" in a way which proscribes this level of change. (That was the point of my last comments about genus, order, species, etc.)<br /><br />Secondly, the scriptures speak of creatures as being brought forth from the earth, and animated by the Spirit. They even lump men and beasts together in the Noachic covenant. The definitions tend to be spiritual and covenantal, rather than visible.<br /><br />I believe it is a mistake to preclude evolution "from frog to camel" based on these visible categories, because they somehow seem more Platonic to me than scriptural. They seem like categories that we impose on the text, rather than draw from it.<br /><br />However, the ancient insight which you point out -- that at some fundamental level, creation cannot change -- still seems sound to me, and I continue to wonder how to apply that insight.<br /><br />Perhaps we should understand it spiritually; for example, "The leopard cannot change his spots" should not mean that a feline body type cannot change into something startlingly different over many years. It should rather mean that we should wisely expect beasts--and people--to act "according to their natures". Keeping in mind that the cross, with its accompanying "circumcision of the heart", teaches us that natures are capable of changing, but only by divine action.Mairnéalachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-81890938223325361722009-07-12T05:25:46.171-07:002009-07-12T05:25:46.171-07:00Evolution is a loaded term and is used in differen...Evolution is a loaded term and is used in different ways, often not clarified by the user, so that we end up talking past each other. I try to avoid using the term because it isn't helpful unless we agree on a precise definition before we begin discussion. If by evolution one means 'change over time', what is the nature of the change? Are we speaking of change from one essence to another? Say from a frog to a camel? Or are we speaking of flux, as in the range of cameloids: alpacas, guanacos, llamas, and vicunas? Are we to assume that humans are subject to the same change over time as non-human creatures since we have reason to believe that humans are in a unique position?<br /><br />I agree that the Bible doesn't eliminate the idea of change/flux over time. But the ancient Afro-Asiatics who gave us these sacred texts believed that the order of creation was fixed by God and they based this on observation of life on earth and the clock-like movement of the constellations and planets. Perhaps this is what you mean when you speak of 'ephemeral change'?<br /><br />You are really stretching me here, Mairnealach, and I thank you for being such an engaging reader! :)Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-688820610845171516.post-990446329239103712009-07-12T02:20:01.742-07:002009-07-12T02:20:01.742-07:00Lovely reflections, and enlightening, as always. &...Lovely reflections, and enlightening, as always. "Among the animals, there was found no helper suitable for him"-- which dovetails in with your explanation of animal unity vs. human/Trinitarian unity.<br /><br />However, I still maintain that these scriptural texts, understood in light of the ancient ideas which you so ably illuminate, do not eliminate the possibility of very great morphology in the biota -- in other words, evolution. These things would not constitute "essential change", only ephemeral change.Mairnéalachnoreply@blogger.com