Comments on: The End of Christianity http://feuchtblog.net/2010/07/20/the-end-of-christianity/ Noch ein Tag im Paradies Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:12:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Uncle Dennis http://feuchtblog.net/2010/07/20/the-end-of-christianity/comment-page-1/#comment-241 Uncle Dennis Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:55:33 +0000 http://feuchtblog.net/?p=799#comment-241 "Eventually, God must stick his finger into the world somewhere, whether it be the garden of Eden, or in simply making a man along the models of prior biological entities that he has previously created." This is a key issue between intelligent-design theorists and evolutionary creationists. Why God should have to tinker with the creation after he establishes the laws of the universe along with initial conditions is unclear. Has he not gotten it right from the start? The origin of man issue might best address exactly what is meant by "man". Adam was the first "man" in that he was the first homo sapiens to be able to relate to God. But was he the first homo sapiens? Was Cain's wife one of the others, a homo sapiens but not an Adamite? This approach both explains the long development of life leading to Adam and it also allows that what happened to Adam in the Garden then spread to all homo sapiens from the Adamites. Now all h.s.s can relate to God - or almost all. This also helps to explain why God considered some groups of homo sapiens unredeemable, such as the Canaanites whom Israel was supposed to eliminate (but did not entirely). It is divine eugenics. I know Dembski and spent late nights talking with him at ASA meetings long ago. I am a bit surprised that he is branching out to theology (theodicy) but am not too surprised that he tends to argue in a rationalist vein. “Eventually, God must stick his finger into the world somewhere, whether it be the garden of Eden, or in simply making a man along the models of prior biological entities that he has previously created.”

This is a key issue between intelligent-design theorists and evolutionary creationists. Why God should have to tinker with the creation after he establishes the laws of the universe along with initial conditions is unclear. Has he not gotten it right from the start?

The origin of man issue might best address exactly what is meant by “man”. Adam was the first “man” in that he was the first homo sapiens to be able to relate to God. But was he the first homo sapiens? Was Cain’s wife one of the others, a homo sapiens but not an Adamite?

This approach both explains the long development of life leading to Adam and it also allows that what happened to Adam in the Garden then spread to all homo sapiens from the Adamites. Now all h.s.s can relate to God – or almost all. This also helps to explain why God considered some groups of homo sapiens unredeemable, such as the Canaanites whom Israel was supposed to eliminate (but did not entirely). It is divine eugenics.

I know Dembski and spent late nights talking with him at ASA meetings long ago. I am a bit surprised that he is branching out to theology (theodicy) but am not too surprised that he tends to argue in a rationalist vein.

]]>