Re: only 50 genes away

Glenn R. Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Wed, 21 Oct 1998 18:50:10 -0500

At 07:53 AM 10/21/98 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
> This type of evidence is certainly significant for paleoanthropology,
>but some questions arise in applying your criterion to putative present day
> clones, computers, or genetically modified chimps. Your examples give _a
>posteriori_ evidence for some type of religious sense. I.e., we look at the
>artifacts we've found and decide they have a religious character. But
what _a
> priori_ criteria would we set up for a modified chimp &c _before it comes
>into the lab to be tested_? Would we have to wait & see if - & how - it
>buried its dead? Or whether it built some sort of sanctuary/shrine &c?

Assuming that the geneticists insert human 50 genes into a chimp embryo and
then it develops into something similar to a human there are some a priori
criteria, but they aren't conclusive. A prerequisite for spirituality is
the requirement that one must be capable of UNDERSTANDING the gospel even
if in some simple form. Thus as a first test, the mutated chimp offspring
would need to be able understand more than the 150 words of the common
'talking chimp' vocabulary. When I only knew 150 chinese words, I was
unable to understand or say anything. Further, the average chimp 'sentence'
is 2 words (references for all this available upon request and some of
these reports raise serious questions about present day chimp
communication). They currently are incapable of understanding the gospel.

If they pass that test, then the question becomes much more complex. If
they understand the gospel, is it applicable? But I do know this, unless
they can communicate, they can't be spiritual.

> Note that those possibilities would imply a _communal_ dimension to
>spirituality. & that's probably correct, _pace_ the excessive
individualism of >a lot of American protestantism.
> BTW, we should bear in mind that a lot of evidence for early human
>religion seems more like evidence for a distorted spirituality, as in
Romans 1. >That's probably what, as Christians, we should expect.

Christians can only claim such things as the apparent altar at
Bilzingsleben 400 kyr ago, IF Adam was prior to 400 kyr ago. Currently
most Christendom believes that Adam lived some where AFTER 100 kyr and most
of those believe Adam was after 10,000 BC. So, as things currently
stand, apologetically speaking, Christians can't claim this as evidence for
distorted spirituality because there was no spirituality before 100 kyr.

glenn

Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm