>>ABSTRACT. The thesis of a young Adam, and the antithesis of an
old Homo, might be resolved by a synthesis where Genesis
1 Adam ("Man") and Genesis 2 Adam and Eve are different. Later
convergence and extinctions would ensure that only modern Homo
sapiens survived to be both biologically and theologically in "Adam".
This model has theological difficulties, but so does every model of
the antiquity and unity of humanity. Ultimately the books of nature and
Scripture must agree, if only we had all the pages and interpreted
them right!<<
And further
>> But whether they are *fully* human is another matter.
Is there any evidence of them speaking a complex language,
farming and building cities, which is a mark of post Gn 2 man.<<
And finally,
>>I do not agree that Glenn's interpretation is "the only way". I have
in fact suggested another way of "harmonizing Science with Scripture", ie. by
interpreting Gn 1 Adam (Heb. "man") as different in time from Gn 2 Adam and
Eve. This preserves the recency and uniqueness of modern Homo sapiens, while
recognises the emerging image of God in those Homo fossil ancestors that
evidence a religious and artistic life.<<
I stand corrected; your solution will explain the data. But the problems I
have with your view, Stephen, are several.
First, I do not see the scripture saying that "speaking a complex language,
farming and building cities" is a a mark of post Genesis 2 humanity. This
leaves us in the position of choosing who is and is not human and thus our
treatement of them is determined by our belief. 100 years ago, one of the
justifications for slavery was the belief that the black man had no soul. He
was a pre-human. A partial reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dred Scott
decision is enlightening in this regard. (For the non-U.S. citizens, the Dred
Scott decision was an infamous court decision from 1857 which said that black
men were property. It ultimately fueled the passions that led to our civil
war in 1861-1865)
"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in
relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and
enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of
Independence and when the Consitution of the United States was framed and
adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a
manner too plain to be mistaken.
"They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an
inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either
in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly
and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold
and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a
profit could be made by it. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as
in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to
dispute; and men in every grade acted upon it in their private pursuits, as
well as in matters of public concern, iwthout doubting for a moment the
correctness of this opinion..." Roger B. Taney, "Dred Scott vs Sandford," The
Annals of America, 8, 1850-1857", Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976 pp.441-442.
By your criteria, if I decide that the click-filled language of the Kalahari
Bushmen is not complex enough, then I can treat them as pre-human (see
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1, 1982, p. 228 Their language is largely made of
clicks. Very different from most all other languages). They did not build
cities and they did not farm. The same can be said about the New Guinea
tribesmen or the Amazonian indians. All I have to do is to decide that they
do not speak a complex language. I would suggest that you broaden your
definition of humanity.
I know that you do not accept that view and I am not suggesting that you do,
but I see that as an implication of your view that SOMEONE might accept.
History is full of examples of men treating other men as less than human
based upon various criteria. And this is not something that is restricted to
the Europeans. The Pawnee indians, if I recall correctly, believed they were
the only true humans, everyone else was less than human. Much of Native
American society was like this and it justified the way they treated each
other. If I recall correctly, Jews were considered subhuman in Nazi Germany.
My uncle was on the Bataan Death March in World War II. The Japanese thought
that anyone who surrendered had lost all human honor and were therefore
subject to being treated anyway the conquorer wanted. To the Japanese of
that era, it was all so logical.
This is the problem I see with having a prehuman being that uses tools like a
man, builds religious altars like a man, builds huts like a man but is not a
man. Can I justifiably treat him like a cow?
I guess if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, builds nests like a
duck, it is probably a duck. The same goes for men.
By the way, how complex is the english language spoken by Australians? :-)
Secondly, you use the term "emerging image of God". I don't see that in
Scripture. It seems to me that the image of God is something you have or
don't have. It is not something that "emerges" gradually.
Stephen wrote:
The following simplified model would explain how the human race
could be both biological one in Gn 1 Adam and theologically one
in Gn 2 Adam and Eve:
\|/g. Modern man (after convergence)
/|
/ |\ _ f. Boskop Man? (Eiseley) extinct
d. Neanderthals _ / | \/
(extinct) \ / \ | /e. Noah
\/ \|/
\ /c. Gn 2 Adam & Eve
\ /
a.Homo erectus _ |b. Gn 1 Adam ("man")
(extinct) \ |
\|
****endquote
There is that famous reconstruction which creationist have made a lot out of,
which shows a rather modern looking neanderthal. (I am sorry I can't give a
citation for this). My question is, How do you know they went extinct rather
than interbreeding themselves out of existence? There have been suggestions
that Neanderthal and early man may have been 'cohabitants' [see Scientific
American, Sept. 1991,p. 42
glenn