Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

DrSnug
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24

Posted 11/1/2002 1:56 PM (GMT -6)

Lately in my reading, I've reluctantly begun to realize that my fight with the practicality of evolution has morphed into more of a philosophical argument. I've been reading Ian Barbour's book, When Science Meets Religion, and the one theme that keeps coming up (because of the interference of classical Christian beliefs about the omnipotence of God) was how God was only lacking omnipotence because he voluntarily relinquishes it for the sake of freedom in the world. Process theologians seem scared and want to hold onto the ultimate omnipotence of God over matter. If the open view of God is true, then maybe it's possible that (and this is putting it simplistically) God created a molecularly potential universe ex nihilo and then when a life form worthy of His image had evolved, He gave it a soul and dominion over all other creation. Ooooooohh, man, the doctor is in. I have my opinion, what's yours?
Too long at the laboratory,
DrSnug

"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God."

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 11/1/2002 6:44 PM (GMT -6)

Dr. Snug, I know a few evangelical Christian biologists who have held to something like this. I don't see any way of determining with any certainty how much of the past or present or future is settled and how much is not. So we're into total speculation here. My only concern with your proposal is that it could be interpreted as undermining the directive "Let us make humans..." Given the central role the "imago dei" plays in Scripture, and in our life, this is an important consideration.

Now, one COULD argue that God put the pieces in order, allowing for a certain degree of indeterminacy, and had the imago dei in mind as an eventual and inevitable outcome... but yet left various ASPECTS of the imago dei indeterminate. For example, one could argue that God was created and (to whatever extent necessary) directed the process such that it was certain that sooner or later a free moral agent with a capacity to love and obey would result -- but whether it would have two or three eyes (for example) was left open.

So, your theory need not be a threat to the imago dei, but it could be.

Thanks for sharing it,

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 11/1/2002 9:15 PM (GMT -6)

DrSnug,

I would encourage you to check out a book I read recently, entitled: God After Darwin by John F. Haught. He does a really good job of making the God of evolution seem to be the true God of the bible. He uses the argument of kenosis to show that a self emptying God approaches creation in this very manner. Sometimes people argue that a kenotic argument displays a weak uncontrolling God, but the I only see him as weak if you want to view God as exercising brute force over his creation--which is inconsistent, in my opinion, with the biblical portrayal of God's love (i.e. 1 Cor 13). I am only giving you one of the many different arguments for the God of evolution, but that is because I have only read this book once, and I am not good at book reviews

. I don't remember him using literal arguments from Genesis like Dr.Boyd has done above, but I think that is because Dr.Haught doesn't hold to a literal (as in being real, per se) interpretation of the bible, but I am not quite sure when it boils down to it what I would do: reject science, or reject a literal interpretation of Genesis? Maybe there is a way to integrate them both? I guess I won't know until I get more proof.

Here is the link to amazon.com if you'd like too check it out: www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813367239/ref=ed_oe_h/102-4982399-0090534?v=glance

Blessings,
Paul

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - faithfullservent on 11/02/2002 07:20:05 AM

DrSnug
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24

Posted 11/4/2002 9:14 AM (GMT -6)

The fact is that there is currently no respected milieu of fossil intermediates in our records. What we do know is that our DNA composition is in the upper 90th percentage in compatibility for most primates. Of course, this is only taking into account the transition from primates to man, but I think it's important to take on one portion at a time. This means that if the human race is to be distinct from primates, the distinction can not be physical. (Obviously, since God is metaphysical, to be created in His image must mean that we are created according to other non-physical characteristics)
My question concerns the image of God. So if open view evolution were true, and God created a molecularly potential universe, which included the evolution of mankind from our supposed monkey uncles, then this would suppose either that the Genesis account is not literal (implications?) or that God possibly intervened in time to bestow his image to a higher newly created being. So this is my problem, if we as humans are created in God's image, then what characteristics beyond the physical did we obtain? His omnipotence? His inability to choose to do anything opposite to good? His ability to love, maybe. Self-knowledge? Oh, I know, maybe it's our subconscious, because we all know that God has a subconscious, right? WHAT IS THE IMAGE OF GOD? What seems to distinguish me from the animals seems to be a higher awareness, or consciousness. But of what am I aware. I can't see God, but I assume He exists because of certain historical documents (the Bible) which record the account of Jesus. My argument for the separation of man and animals must be grounded on my assumption that animals do not have a conscious and that consciousness cannot be molecularly determined by evolution.
I know these are randomized thoughts, but I'm trying to understand what the image of God has to do with my consciousness (supposing it does at all). Any comments?

By the way, DrBoyd, I will not believe that humans evolved from primates until genetic or fossil evidence overwhelms me. I do believe that regardless of whether or not God created a potential universe, humans were created distinctly for a relational purpose.
DrSnug

"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God."

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 11/4/2002 9:54 AM (GMT -6)

What up, Snuglas. You may have already done this, but there is a chapter in Across the Spectrum that deals with the issue of defining the "image of God." I think it's chapter five or six.

My personal feeling about it is that what separates us from the rest of creation is simply God's decision that we are special. He has granted us this higher status for a couple unique purposes: first, to participate with God in his triune love, which in turn will accomplish the secondary purpose of reclaiming the world from the rebellion of God's first creation (Satan and his angels).

I don't know that we need to identify some physical or metaphysical attribute other than that. Still in process about it, though.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 11/5/2002 5:24 PM (GMT -6)

Dr. S.

I think humans are symbol users. This more than anything else separates us from even our closes primate 'relatives'.

Careful research in to the "chimp sign-language" studies show how flawed and corrupted the designs are. Only humans speak (like God speaks). Because of that symbolic communication (= communication not based solely on stimulus/response ) we can love and have relationships.

That is, we don't just emit pheremones and attract the nearest mate and then eat him/her to feed our young. We write poems and wear makeup and drive nice cars to attract the opposite sex.

So, I think there are biological differences and different ways to talk about them (the 'second signal system', developed areas of the brain, 'consciousness' as a biological phenomenon) that fit with an evolutionary or creationist view. What do you think?

-Terry
Giddyup

DrSnug
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24

Posted 11/7/2002 9:43 AM (GMT -6)

Terry,
I think that there is a flaw in comparing communication or mating rituals between animals and humans as a means to distinguish our superiority. There are actually life-long, monogamous relationships even between animals and mating rituals and communication could be easily be construed as evolved. It seems to me that our God-given dominion over creation is the bridge we walk with the Creator. This, I believe, is one characteristic unique to humans. God gave us the responsibility of taking care of His creation. Whether or not we are a species evolved from earlier created animals or a species created within time is irrelevant to our designated purpose. We are unique from the animals not because of a defined genetic distance, but because God chose to share Himself and His creation with 'man'kind. I'll have to think about this more later, but thanks for your thoughts.
Oooo, oooo, Ahhhh, Ahhh
DrSnug

"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God."

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 11/7/2002 10:40 AM (GMT -6)

To add my few cents worth . . .

First, man has a sense of nobility. Unlike the lion, man knows he is to rule, that he is noble. (Man is also quite cruel, too.)

Second, man has the keen awareness that he is in need; he needs to worship something. He needs love. Animals do not need love as man needs love. Man knows that he loves, and he can therefore ask why does man love?

Man can reason. Not like animals, but different; man can reason why he has personality, why he can reason.

Finally, man has "ought." He knows things ought to be a specifica way. More than animals, who merely move in the direction they do, man can reason why he should and should not do certain things. He can therefore ask why he is able to ought and where does it come from. (I know of no proof that personality and ought can derive from evolution.)

Well, there you have my thoughts.

Starkman

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual