From: psm@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Phil Malin)
Subject: Re: Is evolution contrary to creation?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 05:55:11 GMT

Hi Andrew.  I have a couple of thoughts on this subject as I was only thining
about it not long ago.

u9264442@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew William Easton) writes:

>I have asked most of my christian friends and church leaders about this, and
>the best answer that I have recieved is that it is also stated in the bible
>that it is not supposed to be a scientific book (ie it answers "why?", not 
>"how?"). Can anybody present even a shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence (ie not from
>the bible, or some jerk's theory) against evolution? Can anybody explain why
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
			I hope you don't lump me into this category.  I think you
			could look at my thoughts as my theory.

>the Lord would not use evolution to create everything? If not, then I'm afraid
>that science has sucked me in, because I will have to believe that the Lord
>used an evolutionary process to create what we see today.

>The Bearded One..... 

First of all I must state that I find evolution a bit hard to swallow.  God
created man differently to the other animals - man has a soul.  It seems strange
that God would evolve humans from another species and then place a soul into
it.

Also, there is evidence about prehistoric animals before man was evolved.
Some of these were obviously carnivores - therefore they killed.  But God
created the world perfect, without death.  i.e. nothing died.

Now comes my theory...

If God created the world perfect there would be no death.  Everything would
be perfect.  But if man sinned, suddenly imperfection would enter and permeate
all of creation.  To me this is like a discontinuity on the time line of man.
That is why I don't trust the theories modern day scientists have to offer
about the origins of man.  How can they predict back to a time when a
discontinuity blocks their path?  They can't.  Their predictions will be
false.  It's difficult to explain without a graph.  Consider;


	   ____________






	   ************------------------------------------------------
       ^														  ^
	   beginning                                                  now

	   If we look at the graph, the top line represents the world when
	   created - perfect.  The disconinuity describes when sin entered the
	   world.  From that point until now science can predict (I assume)
	   quite accurately what happened.  If they try to predict further
	   back they will be entering into a region which science can't possibly
	   know about.  I will even go so far as to say that modern physics
	   wouldn't even describe that time.  The world was in a totally alien
	   state to what it is now.

I hope this helps.  I don't know if you agree or not, but to me it really
rests on one's faith.  To me this seems logical, even though it's not
answering the question on *how* God created the world.

If anyone has any thoughts or criticisms about this I'd be glad to hear.


>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| u9264442@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au | "I've had enough of Irish Americans who... |
>| 				| talk about the resistance, the revolution  |
>| You've all seen a disclaimer  | back home, and the glory of the revolution,|
>| before. Mine's the same.      | and the glory of dyin' for the revolution. |
>|				| _FUCK_ THE REVOLUTION!!!"  	- Bono       |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil Malin
psm@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au

Newsgroups: aus.religion