The concluding issues:
First, is the literary context of Noah's flood relevant?
I said:
>My goal in concordism is to find a 'match' between the Biblical stories
>and the evolutionary and archaeological record. That 'match' gives us
>complementing views; insight into the Biblical story and the appreciation
>corresponding evolution event/epoch. So I do not weigh the story of
>Noah's flood as true or false. Rather, does it point to something that
>actually happened?
...
>The question is: Does that make the Biblical flood story false? To me it
makes
>the flood story like the Iliad - the epic poem about the Trojan War -
>which I would say is simultaneously true and false. It is legend.
>
Glenn replied:
>I would say that this is a profound difference between our approaches that
is unlikely to be bridged. To me if an account doesn't closely match the
event, it isn't true. You allow much more leeway.
My comment:
I allow so much leeway that the judgement that the story is 'true' or 'false'
cannot be assessed. My question asks whether the story 'is' or 'is not'
recognizably associated with an event in evolutionary / archaeological history.
That 'sense of recognition' may be qualified (part of a continuum) or binary
('see' or 'not see').
The sense of recognition allows a new appreciation of the Biblical story and
the evolutionary event. For example, my claim that H. erectus corresponds
to 'the intention of man' (Gen. 1:26) allows the reader to appreciate this
species as both natural ancestor and divine act. At the same time, the reader
can appreciate the Biblical passage as resembling a portion of the scientific
'origin story'.
What Glenn is asking the reader to do is associate early H. erectus with Adam,
and Noah's flood with the Mediterranean infill, even though this creates a gap
that distorts the 'direct descent' appearance of the genealogies, ignores the
JEDP
analysis of the stories, and tears apart the various stories of Noah
(for example, the 'founding of nations' must have occurred in Mesopotamian
prehistory). Glenn's approach also throws any Genesis 1:26-30 correspondence
to after Adam.
If we recognized Glenn's 'match', then how would it increase our appreciation
of the Bible or the events in evolutionary history?
Second, should we consider H. erectus as human?
I said:
>I think that the label 'H. erectus' by archeaologists says it all. It
>is not only the 'pace of innovation' that separates sapiens from erectus.
>There are anatomical differences as well. But most important is this
>question: Is it more appropriate to regard H. erectus and habilis as the
>'intention of man' corresponding to Gen 1:26 than as Adam?
Glenn said:
>Perhaps you are unaware of how many anthropologists really think erectus
should be sunk into our species--Homo sapiens.
A series of quotes followed, many from the 'multi-regional hypothesis
camp', who would like to extend the definition of H. sapiens to include
H. erectus.
My reply:
The delicate issue of whether anatomically modern humans could breed
with H. erectus is one that flows from the definition of a biological
species. I do not consider Gen 1:26-30 to be constrained by modern
definitions of 'species'. H. erectus is 1. prior to H. sapiens, 2.
looked different 3. may well have behaved differently than H. sapiens
and 3. is considered to be ancestral to H. sapiens. The category of H.
erectus, while challenged, is still regarded as credible in recent
publications on evolutionary descent.
Neither do I desire to rely on definitional terms. The correspondence
between Gen 1:26 and H. erectus and habilis is evocative, not definitional.
The evidence of language (which I think H. erectus had), awareness of
something beyond nature or the religious impulse (I think they had this
as well), fire, foresight and so forth, for H. erectus is - to me -
different than the evidence of these capacities for H. sapiens. It
is my sense that anthropologists use these terms as 'handles' to
grasp a gestalt that is more than the sum of definitions. I believe
that this is why the category of H. erectus will remain useful in
archaeology.
Thus, the behavioral features discussed in Glenn's article "Dating
Adam", to me, increase my appreciation of the artistry of God intending
to create man and of the high expectations expressed in the creation of
man 'in the image of God'. At the same time, I see the hand of the
divine when regarding these predecessors.
I've enjoyed our exchange and am glad to have reached a position where
our differences can be expressed with integrity. Thank you.
My final question for Glenn:
Philosopher Leslie Stevenson proposed that every worldview either directly
or indirectly addresses four questions:
Where did our world come from?
Where did humans come from?
What went wrong?
What is the proposed solution?
How does your {Biblical:natural} association of {Adam:early H. erectus}
and {Noah's flood:Mediterranean infill} increase our appreciation of
the complementarity of the Genesis text and the evolutionary sciences
in regards to these four questions?
You can point to an answer on the web.
God bless.
Ray