From: chrisa@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (C. G. Albone)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 02:11:10 GMT

In article <9224823.12713@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> sliew@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Selbyn Liew) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.025845.15619@cc.uow.edu.au> u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:
>>
>>The Lord can do what he likes. I used to find it hard to believe that the Lord
>>changed the refractive index of water (to make rainbows) after the flood. If
>>you can accept that, you should be able to accept the addition of a soul to
>>man.

>>
>Interesting point.  Actually, it was explicitly stated somewhere in
>Genesis that prior to the flood, the earth's atmosphere was different
>and rain was something unheard of.  It could be that rainbows are non-
>existent prior to the flood because of this different scheme of things.

The only possible reference in Genisis that i can find that says what you
think you remember is Gen 2:5, but this will do you no good. It is specifically
in the context of the second creation narrative. Specifically, it is 
before (preexistant (uncreated?????)) earth was given any features.

>That is why in Heb 11, it is said that Noah set about to build a ship
>out of believing God.  It certainly takes faith then because floods
>to him, were unheard of.

Gen 2:6 goes on to say "but streams came up from the earth and watered
the whole surface of the ground..." so, if what you were saying is
correct, it should have taken no faith at all for Noah to build a boat,
indeed it would have been out of necessity.

Actually, I have missed much of the debate of evolution .v. creation
as it bores me _shitless_. It would seem that the terms of the debate
are confused from the start: evolution does not have any presuppositions
as to whether the universe came to be or whether it was preexistant. It
does not cut God out of the picture. It is simply a theory that was
constructed to explain certain phenomena. It has undergone changes since
Darwin, and no doubt will undergo further changes, or indeed may even
be replaced by a superior theory. It is a description of a process that
is inferred from observation.  While I guess it does have presuppositions as
to the cause of this process (by being bound through genetics into the
larger scientific scheme of things) there is still alot of room for God
in the picture. Maybe God did things in a certain way... the way that
we call evolution now.

The far more interesting questions that underlie the debate are to do with
the nature of the bible, and the nature of the narratives within the bible.
Again, not having read many of the previous posts due to my limitations of
withstanding boredom, has anyone mentioned the parallels between the Genisis
creation myth (which by the way does not necessarily imply falsehood) and the
various other creation myths from Babylon and the like? And as Noah has been 
brought into the discussion, the lots of parallels between the biblical
flood narrative and the _older_ Canaanite & Assyrian flood myths? IMHO, these
raise interesting questions as to how one should approach Genisis (and indeed
the whole of the Old Testament). 
 
---
Chris. 
Newsgroups: aus.religion