"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c0iuo7$l8o$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > I read Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial.
> > He mentioned that US's Jewish community is not interested to
> > fight against neodarwinism/evolution.
> > It seems embarrashment to creationists ?
> > Jewish people know perhaps better the original hebrew version of Genesis
> ;)
> >
> > In fact I remember only one Jewish creationist :Spetner.
> >
> >
> > --
> > A marvelous jeweler told me rumors about gray mold in US theater.
> > A marvellous jeweller told me rumours about grey mould in UK theatre.
> > How come ? Well, the farther from Darwin the more corrupted language ;)
> > - http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane
> >
>
> It's a good question, and I believe I have worked out the answer to it.
>
> There are a number of Christians who believe in a theistic evolution, as
> most Jewish believers seem to do, but for those who take seriously the
> central Christian doctrine of the Resurrection, and, what goes hand in hand
> with that, a new heavens and a new earth, all resurrected, so, in other
> words, a new creation, a problem occurs which doesn't occur for the Jewish
> believer, for whom the resurrected form of the afterlife is not a central
> doctrine. This problem is, if we say that God was unable to create the old
> world directly, and miraculously, without waiting for billions of years,
> then what of the new creation?
Where does science say God was unable to do that? Science says what
the world looks like, not what God was *able* to do. The closest I
know to this kind of statement is the scientific creationists who
claim that God was unable to make the world via a long time and
evolution. I see creationists frequently claiming limits to God's
ability.
> In other words, it is the doctrine and the hope of bodily resurrection and
> new creation, which is not a central tenet of Judaism, which is the single
> biggest stumbling block to our understanding Genesis as a metaphor for
> massive periods of time.
>
> I hope that makes sense to you.
It makes sense but I think it is wrong. I think that for some the
notion of a non-literal Fall is a serious problem. But overwhelmingly
I think (for those who know me you can skip this hobby horse as I ride
it again) the problem is essentialism. Much of Christianity (that is,
Greek affected Paulism) is an essentialist doctrine. The souls is some
essential quality, morality has some essential nature, etc. And
evolution, along with, but more clearly than, the rest of science,
does not fit with an essentialist mindset. Evolution (indeed, all
exploration of the past) deals with *change*. The whole notion of
species change bewilders most creationists. They rejected it, not
because they see it as physically impossible, but because they don't
understand, they can't conceive, of how something can become another
thing.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 |
|