Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Duke Nukum

Paul said, “All flesh is not the same flesh” There is flesh of fowl, flesh of fish, and flesh of beasts, etc. He was arguing for the plausibility of our resurrection in the flesh by characterizing our presumed “resurrection bodies” as just one more addition to the variety of created flesh.

Nowadays, evolution or no, we understand that all flesh is the same flesh, being produced in the same way by the same genetic code carrying different instructions. This is an entirely materialistic understanding, and you and others who object to evolution as degrading to the spirit seem to have no such objection to this comprehensively materialistic ontology which embraces you and me as well as the fish, fowl, and beasts.

Compare and contrast Lucretius with Paul. Lucretius embraced radical materialism, and on that basis expressed a notion of the genome. “... we see that all things bred from fixed seeds by a fixed mother are able to conserve their kind as they grow. Assuredly this must come about in a fixed way.”

He’s expressing the notion that embryonic development follows natural laws. There are also some very interesting adumbrations of genetics in Aristotle.


38 posted on 07/17/2007 7:36:36 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: dr_lew

Oops. For “ontology” read “ontogeny” = “individual development”. I knew I didn’t have the right word, but you know how it goes.


39 posted on 07/17/2007 7:47:15 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson