Genesis says God made man out of the dust of the earth. (I agree, but believe the process took several billion years.) Nevertheless, if the literal, seven day story is true, how come people have defective genes that cause a wide variety of disease? Until recently humans had no means to affect our genetics, and original sin had no affect on our physical selves, but on our spiritual selves and our relationship with God and nature.
so where do defective genes come from? A perfect creator God doesn't make defective goods.
If you argue that the defects come from abnomalities in the process of genetic activity, well this also happens in animals too and so you have to admit that there is a genetic relationship. (Chimpanzees and humans share well over 90% of their genetic material in common.)
The daughter of a friend of mine has a rare mentally disabling genetic disorder that can only be expressed when both parents carry the defect and pass it on. And very few people have this defect, so the disease is extremely rare. Is this the result of our fall from grace? Did God visit this upon them because of sin? Or did evolution drag this along from the past as the inevitable errors happen in the process of genetic reproduction over the ages?
You know my answer. What's yours?
| 2005/3/18 13:54|
| Re: genetics?|
Or did evolution drag this along from the past as the inevitable errors happen in the process of genetic reproduction over the ages?
There had not been enough time if Einstein's or anyone elses Oscillating Universe theories were true. The probability of any type of macroevolution to take place is off the scale. There is not enough space in the Universe to fill with Hydrogen electrons for me to even be able to make an understandable analogy.
Michael Behe in his book "Darwins Black Box" describes how it is impossible to have a living organism 'live' without all of its basic components in place at once. He describes several very complex human and animal processes such as blood clotting that is impossible without design far beyond out technology. Moreover, how could a sensory device evolve if it was unaware of light, sound, heat, etc. What would a creature that was born deformed mate with? There has to be a male and female. The fossil record is utterly silent where if the scale of evolution had been as needed there had been all manor of transitional forms. That is where Steven Gould's theory "Punctuated Equilibria" came in. Suddenly one life form leaped into another. Really? I don't have that much faith.
I could go on and on. But here is a very good example I recently heard. The simplest life is a molecular time 1200th order chemical reaction. A good chemist struggles to get a 3rd to 4th order reaction and cannot get 5th and 6th order reactions inspite of our know how and equipment (computers, etc.). To keep it simple chemicals like to react with one another. The more chemicals you are dealing with the more difficult it becomes. People have died mixing chemicals up not knowing what was going to result. In production environments you can react 2 chemicals together and then do another and another. But how could you possibly keep 1200-2000 chemicals in equilibrium in the human body? They would be reacting against each other. this is why pharmacutical companies have to do such extensive clinical trials. They are constantly battling this issue and many others. Get one wrong chemical out of balance and what do you have? think of how delicate that is when you consider how people have mood swings? 2000th order chemical reactions and we can only do maybe a 5th? God truly is upholding all things by the Word of His power!
Robert Wurtz II
| 2005/3/18 14:34||Profile|
| Re: genetics?|
i tell you this honestly in nothing but love and concern for you ... but you're scaring me ...
i'm not even gonna address your billions of years view on Adam's creation ... You wanna keep on believing that that's between you and God ...
But what do you mean original sin had no bearing on our physical selves? ... Prior to Adams sin he had the gift of eternal life ... Why did Christ come here as redeemer ... So that "whosever believeth in Him might not perish (in the condemnation of Adamic sin) but have (regain) everlasting life" anew ... That's basic Christianity pure and simple ... If you don't see this, or just don't want to see this, then you'll never be able to see the rest of it, no matter how hard Holy Spirit attempts to reveal it to you ... Take heed, even as before the flood, God's Spirit will not always strive with man ...
And in reference to the whole gene defect/abnormality issue, if you're in fact looking for an answer past this ...
"Wherefore, as by one man sin (the cause of every defect in mankind) entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" ... Rom.5: 12
... i'm afraid you've relegated yourself to your own private hell of endlessly straining at gnats to justify the camels you seem to be swallowing ...
My new prayer is that Holy Spirit can pump your "spiritual" stomach of all the poisons gathered there ...
| 2005/3/18 14:46||Profile|
Ok, I've been studying evolution for 20 years.
Michael Behe looks only for ways that evolution is impossible and ignores the fact that the basic chemical constituents and elements of life arrived on the tails of millions of comets that bombarded the young earth. God set it up from the beginning! No way for evolution of life NOT to happen.
To keep your position you have to ignore clear evidence of an old earth and events in the evolution of life such as the Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction event caused by an astroid colliding with the earth 65 million years ago and sending the dinosaurs to extinction. The crater is still there! Rocks don't lie.
But, from the first two responses and from previous experience, I can tell this will be a fruitless discussion. I just wanted to know how Christians explain genetic defects -- which evolve and change -- while denying evolution. The same engine -- genetic mutation -- drives both.
I won't post on this subject again. But I will listen.
| 2005/3/18 15:37|
| Re: genetics?|
Come on brother Bub ...
Hope you're not angry ...
But you know how narrow minded we fundementalist can be on subjects such as this ... Our minds are a reflection of the road we trod ... '0)
| 2005/3/18 16:43||Profile|
The daughter of a friend of mine has a rare mentally disabling genetic disorder...Did God visit this upon them because of sin?
What's interesting about this question, is that I believe this is the same problem that led Darwin to "see" Evolution...for the deeply personal purpose of explaining suffering without "implicating" a perfect God. For 15 years, Darwin had been wrestling with origins over such metaphysical questions as "Why do cats play with mice before killing them". However it was the personal pain brought on by the tragic illness and death of Darwins' beloved daughter Annie that finally convinced him of his materialistic worldview. (Read great-great-grandson Randal Keynes research in his book "Darwin, his daughter,& human evolution.")
The "scientific establishment" is often blind to the effect of personal experience upon theoretical formulation.
original sin had no affect on our physical selves, but on our spiritual selves and our relationship with God and nature. So where do defective genes come from? A perfect creator God doesn't make defective goods.
It's confusing that these comments accept some of the "non-scientific" (sic) precepts of scripture, such as original sin, spiritual beings, and even God, but reject how scripture views these precepts. This means that not only are you rejecting the bible as an authoritative source of reality...you are also rejecting science. I fear your worldview is a self styled convenience, conforming to neither the assertions of science nor the assertions of scripture.
The bible states clearly that the curse of sin did indeed affect what was a perfect spiritual and physical creation, resulting in a marred universe of "defective goods."
Gen. 3:16-19 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee...cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Paul talked about not only the spiritual restoration of man, but the physical restoration of creation itself.
Romans 8:20-22 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
1 Cor. 15:53"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality".
Regarding the issue of mutation as mentioned...
I just wanted to know how Christians explain genetic defects -- which evolve and change -- while denying evolution.
Christians don't deny evolution. Nobody resonable can deny biological adaptation and genetic mutation. Likewise nobody reasonable can defend macro-evolution---the creative power of matter and energy to generate entirely new groups and spieces of life. Even with purposeful and intelligent expert breeding, species can be taken to the edge of their DNA and no more. Inspite of truckloads of genetic data, belief in macro-evolution is de facto unreachable by physical science.
Neither do they submit scientific papers. One needs only a brief familiarity with the short history of uniformitarianism to be aware that the new science was forced to decide that radioactive decay must be constant, in order to remain a science at all. From this arbritrary and expedient foundation many men such as Kelvin, Rutherford, ect. were then given to the task of finding a "measurement" that supplied the mindboggling expanse of time required by evolution. As a result there was a progressive sequence of proposals and rejections for measuring methods near the turn of the century untill someone found a way to "prove" the quantities of time that scienctists were mandating. (pun intended...)
Believing in the infallibility of radio-carbon dating requires more audacity then believing in the infallibility of scripture.
The following type of quote reveals how philosophical or theological assumptions prevent pure observation.
"...you have to admit that there is a genetic relationship. (Chimpanzees and humans share well over 90% of their genetic material in common.)
Having faith in evolution is not required to explain these kinds of phenomena.Shared common genetic material, or even physical design only demonstrates apparent relationship. For instance, airplanes, automobiles, and motorcycles also share very much of the same technology, systems, and materials. These shared features are explained by shared design.
It is perfectly reasonable to accept that the world we know was at one time a perfect creation. I believe the scriptures show us that once sin had corrupted creation a new divine perrogative took over...that of messianic redemption. Soon after Adams' sin, there is heard the first "ping" of the second Adam, Jesus on the prophetic radar screen.
Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,and you will strike his heel."
Within this context there is an answer to your important original question.
Did God visit this upon them because of sin?
If this question is in regards to "original sin" or "the fall" then the answer is yes.Because of sin, all creation groans for Christ. That is to say, that nothing in this world will be complete untill Jesus restores creation. "But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." While on Earth we take heart that all suffering, even death itself, is left behind in this realm.Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?
After that "theological" perspective there is a more personal side to your question. You may be asking if physical suffering of a child is punishment on the parents as a result of their sin.
The ultimate answer to your question comes from Christ himself.
Jesus said in answer, It was not because of his sin, or because of his father's or mother's; it was so that the works of God might be seen openly in him.
Without first considering the due glory and worship of a perfect creator, all of fallen creation becomes philosophically absurd, emotionally painful, and spiritually void.
| 2005/3/18 17:11||Profile|
| Re: genetics?|
Quote: As MC has commented this is a false premise as most of yours are.
original sin had no affect on our physical selves, but on our spiritual selves and our relationship with God and nature.
Quote:We actually have quite a lot of genetic material in common with the cauliflower; what was your point again?
(Chimpanzees and humans share well over 90% of their genetic material in common.)
Quote: If you walk off the top of your house does God 'visit' your consequent injuries on you. Or was it the consequence of ignoring the plain rules that He has established?
Did God visit this upon them because of sin?
I have spent a substantial part of my life working in one way or another with those mentally damaged or disabled from birth. I have a profoundly handicapped daughter of 32 with a developed age of 18 months. I appreciate your friends pain and Darwins's, but I have never even been tempted to blame God for the 'visitation'. The whole creation continues to groan as a consequence of Adam's sin.
| 2005/3/19 12:50||Profile|
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS
Ok, I've been studying evolution for 20 years.
and you still haven't figured out that it is a crock?
| 2005/3/19 13:12||Profile|
| Re: creation|
This just one of the many resources avilable for our young Earth.
I really feel for you because I used to believe just like you. But one thing I discovered was I was in pride because I would have to admit I was wrong (I'm not saying this about you because I don't know you).
The Bible holds true but science changes, look what they believed 50 years ago as compared to now. The real facts hold up under examination about creation and a young Earth.
If you believe how you do, I'm not saying you're not a Christian but I know from personal experience it can make you doubt other things about the Bible.
I'm not claiming to be an expert in this area but if you would like to chat more drop me a line.
Yours in Christ,
| 2005/3/19 13:56||Profile|