Greetings:
It is good to see Glenn dipping into Victorian anthropology. On the
polygenist/monogenist quention something of the context of the British discussion
is found in Adrian Desmond's, Huxley: From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's High
Priest,
Addison-Wesley, 1997. In the one volume edition, Chapter 17, "Man's Place"
(312-338,
especially 315ff) is of particular value.
Jack Haas
"Glenn R. Morton" wrote:
> At 01:12 AM 11/16/98 EST, PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
> >Bob,
> >
> >I was only answering Dick's construction of Pre-Adamitism: He says plainly on
> >p. 194, "Thus, Catal Huyuk must have been a pre-Adamic city, and the
> residents
> >there were not in 'the image of God.'"
>
> The other day I expressed my concern about the limited Adam theory having
> potential for abuse. I am not a historian so I didn't know that it had
> already been misused. In unrelated research I ran across the following
> about Agassiz:
>
> "Thus, America's leading biologist came down firmly on the wrong side of a
> debate that had been raging in America for a decade before he arrived: Was
> Adam the progenitor of all people or only of white people? Are blacks and
> Indians our brothers or merely our look-alikes? The polygenists, Agassiz
> among them, held that each major race had been created as a truly separate
> species; the monogenists advocated a single origin and ranked races by
> their unequal degeneration from the primeval perfection of Eden--the debate
> included no egalitarians." Stephen J. Gould "Flaws in a Victorian Veil,"
> The Panda's Thumb, p. 170-171
>
> Does anyone know of sources where I can learn more of that debate Gould
> speaks of?
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
--------------28A81502AE098F8C277397FC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
Greetings:
It is good to see Glenn dipping into Victorian anthropology. On the
polygenist/monogenist quention something of the context of the British
discussion is found in Adrian Desmond's, Huxley: From Devil's Disciple
to Evolution's High Priest,
Addison-Wesley, 1997. In the one volume edition, Chapter 17,
"Man's Place" (312-338,
especially 315ff) is of particular value.
Jack Haas
"Glenn R. Morton" wrote:
At 01:12 AM 11/16/98 EST, PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I was only answering Dick's construction of Pre-Adamitism: He says plainly on
>p. 194, "Thus, Catal Huyuk must have been a pre-Adamic city, and the
residents
>there were not in 'the image of God.'"The other day I expressed my concern about the limited Adam theory having
potential for abuse. I am not a historian so I didn't know that it had
already been misused. In unrelated research I ran across the following
about Agassiz:"Thus, America's leading biologist came down firmly on the wrong side of a
debate that had been raging in America for a decade before he arrived: Was
Adam the progenitor of all people or only of white people? Are blacks and
Indians our brothers or merely our look-alikes? The polygenists, Agassiz
among them, held that each major race had been created as a truly separate
species; the monogenists advocated a single origin and ranked races by
their unequal degeneration from the primeval perfection of Eden--the debate
included no egalitarians." Stephen J. Gould "Flaws in a Victorian Veil,"
The Panda's Thumb, p. 170-171Does anyone know of sources where I can learn more of that debate Gould
speaks of?
glennAdam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
--------------28A81502AE098F8C277397FC--