Adam and Eve and Human Origins

[petra]

urban-hermit:

If you read a bit of the context of Romans 1:20, say Romans 1:16-32, you will see that Paul is speaking about how the physical order points toward the moral law (1-worship God above all else, 2-follow God’s commands on how to treat others). He is not saying that nature is in itself the Gospel, or that God never goes against the way nature normally works. The many miracles of God up to our present day show that sometimes He does.

Paul is not saying that nature is THE Gospel—one that points to Christ as Savior. But he identifies a primitive gospel that does exactly what you say: it reveals that there is a single all-powerful Creator and that there is an objective moral code. These things are “understood through that which is made.” It is so sufficient in communicating these things, people are without excuse if they do not honor the Creator or follow that moral law. Their eternal destinies hang in the balance.

We might ask, what is it about “what has been made” that points to a Creator and to morality? It is my assertion that “what has been made” provides an epistemological basis for seeking the Creator and following moral law. It teaches that there is objective reality, objective Truth. As we interact with our environment, our senses teach us that things are really there. As we learn more about the things that are there, we discover order and design to what is made. We learn about cause and effect, which has spiritual implications, as well as physical. We learn to identify and organize data, which provides clues about what happened in a time previous to us. This all reinforces objectivity to reality and helps form our conscience. It makes it possible for us to understand that there is a Creator and that it really is wrong to do certain things.

While we recognize our own fallability in always sensing or interpreting our world correctly, we have consistent enough experience, corroborated with others’ experiences to know that there is still an objective reality out there.

We take this framework for granted because it is so mundane. We all know that our computer monitor is in front of us and it is real because we can see it, but we rarely give that fact a second throught. But faith in the Creator and adherance to a moral code is only possible with this framework. My contention is that it is not possible that false evidence be built into nature because it undermines this framework.

However, the occurance of miracles does not undermine this at all. Whenever miracles have occurred, God has never provided false evidence to point to a naturalistic explanation. The miracles always stood on their own. People have often tried to explain them away with naturalistic causes, but God has never planted false evidence relevant to a specific miracle. If the earth really was formed in 6 literal days as we know them, then that is exactly what God did—planted false evidence relevant to the miracle at hand.

I should add that God did perform miracles in the creation of the universe: He created matter out of nothing, He created life, and He created man. But in each of these instances, He did not plant false evidence to the contrary. Science concedes that the universe did have a beginning. It cannot explain how groups of molecules became animated with a will to live and reproduce. And it cannot explain why some 50,000 years ago, hominids very suddenly became creative, became religious, and developed societies. In each of these points in history, God performed a miracle outside any naturalistic mechanism.

 

[urban-hermit]

… While we recognize our own fallability in always sensing or interpreting our world correctly, we have consistent enough experience, corroborated with others’ experiences to know that there is still an objective reality out there. …

Agreed.

God has placed us in a Creation which we can, at least partially and fallibly, understand with reason alone.

Where we part company is where you repeatedly refer to “false evidence”. Where you see false evidence, I see false conclusions.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about being able to trust the evidence of our senses in the here and now. We are talking about events of the distant past which we are trying our best to piece together.

God has made Himself known through Holy Scripture more explicitly than through sedimentary rock formations. Yes, “the truth is out there” as Molder used to say. But we need all the tools to arrive at the right answer. For an inquiry into our distant past, science is one of those tools. Faith is another, and even more indispensable.

although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:21-22)

Millions of reasonably intelligent humans (probably some of them are scientists) experience sex outside of marriage as the most thrilling and wonderful thing in their lives. Is this “false evidence”? Is not sex thrilling and pleasant? It is indeed quite pleasant, and it was made so by God for a reason. God even wrote His moral law on our hearts. But a number of us have learned that it is dangerously easy, through our misuse of free will, to simply say “no” to what God has told us. Once we say “no” once, God is not above teaching us a lesson, and “handing us over to impurity through the lusts of our hearts” (from Romans 1:24). On any college campus or editorial page you can find intelligent people who will defend all kinds of immorality. They have convinced themselves. God’s (name removed by moderator)ut on the matter is irrelevant or otherwise explained away. They have made themselves gods.

So, if it is possible for very large numbers of intelligent humans to misunderstand the clear and present “evidence” of their own direct lived experiences, which do in fact point toward sexual morality, how much more so is it possible for intelligent scientists to misinterpret fossils and rocks that are thousands of years old?

As intelligent as I’m sure they are, they have come to some conclusions that are at least partially wrong. They have entered into a sort of group-think, where all thought has to harmonize with certain axioms they have accepted. Only thing is, their axioms are man-made axioms. And their thoughts are, generally speaking, not informed by Faith.

They are fallible men, using fallible methods, trying to understand the infallible works of an infinite God. Their conclusions should not be presented as facts, only theories.

Jesus Christ, through His Church, tells me I am at liberty to believe the earth was created in 6 literal days. He’s fine with that. And until the Church tells me otherwise, that’s the way it is.

If the earth really was formed in 6 literal days as we know them, then that is exactly what God did—planted false evidence relevant to the miracle at hand.

Not necessarily.