On Tue, 29 Aug 1995 21:00:31 -0400 Glenn wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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
SJ>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,
SJ>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.<<
GM>I stand corrected; your solution will explain the data. But the
>problems I have with your view, Stephen, are several.
Thanks to Glenn for being the only respondent to my Gn 1 Adam + Gn 2
Adam hypothesis. Was it *that* heretical? :-) As I said, the
hypothesis has difficulties, but then so does every hypothesis that
seeks to integrate the scientific evidence for man's origin into the
Biblical picture.
GM>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.
Granted scripture does not say the above (ie. in the sense of
positively teaching it as doctrine). Scripture also does not say who
the Nephilim were in Gn 6, or where Cain got his wife. These things
are incidental to scripture's main purpose.
However, "speaking a complex language, farming and building cities" is
mentioned as apects of post-Genesis 2 humanity, eg:
1. "...speaking a complex language...":
a. Writing:
"This is the book of the generations [lit. family histories] of
Adam." (Gn 5:1). This implies that Adam could write.
b. Complex language:
" And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it
came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain
in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to
another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they
had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said, Go
to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto
heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon
the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city
and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said,
Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this
they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which
they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound
their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
(Gn 11:1-7)
2. "...farming..."
a. Animal husbandry and agriculture:
"And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Gn 4:2).
b. Plantations & processing
"Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. When he
drank some of its wine..." (Gn 9:20-21)
3. "...building cities..."
a. Cities
"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he
builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his
son, Enoch." (Gn 4:17).
"And Cush begat Nimrod...the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the
beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh,
in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and
builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, And Resen between
Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city." (Gn 10:8-12)
b. Major building projects
"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top
may reach unto heaven..." (Gn 11:4)
If there is no evidence of pre-Homo sapiens hominids carrying out
these activities, then it seems legitimate to regard them tentatively
as diagnostic of Homo sapiens.
GM>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..."
No. I cited objective diagnostic criteria as marks of post Genesis 2
humanity. If pre-Homo sapiens hominids meet these criteria, then
either they would qualify as humanity, or the criteria are inadequate.
GM>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.
This seems to smack of Darwin's dismissal of the Patagonians language
as a series of grunts, when later linguists discovered it was every
bit as complex as modern European languages.
I presume the Kalahari Bushmen's language is just as conceptually
complex as other human languages, even if it is in a different form?
And that they could be taught any other complex human language?
Indeed, it is the Kalahari Bushmen who are presumed to be the
descendants of the "advanced" Boskop Man.
GM>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...Nazi Germany...The Japanese..
No doubt. But these "criteria" were not the Biblical criteria I
mentioned. On those Biblical criteria, all the examples in the
above paragraph would qualify as fully human.
GM>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?
No. I have already said that Gn 1 man was in the image of God (Gn
1:26-27). If Homo erectus was included in Gn 1 man, then he would
be in the image of God, or at least in its emerging form.
GM>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.
Agreed. The point is that pre-Homo sapiens hominids did not look,
speak and build, "like" H. sapiens. For example, H. erectus
apparently did not speak like modern man:
"Homo erectus was prevalent throughout Eurasia and Africa during the
Pleistocene Epoch, also called the Ice Age, because of the recurrent
cold weather that produced the glaciers of this epoch. Homo erectus
had an average brain size of 1,000 cc, but the shape of the skull
indicates that the areas of the brain necessary for memory, intellect,
and language were not well developed."
"Cro-Magnon Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens sapiens) people lived about
40,000 years ago. Their brain capacity was similar to ours (about
1,360 cc). They were such accomplished hunters that some researchers
believe they are responsible for the extinction, during the Upper
Pleistocene Epoch, of many, large mammalian animals, such as the giant
sloth, mammoth, saber- toothed tiger, and giant ox. Because language
would have facilitated their ability to hunt such large animals, it's
quite possible that meaningful speech began at this time."
(Mader S., "Biology", 3rd Ed., 1990, Wm. C. Brown, Indiana,
pp435,437)
GM>By the way, how complex is the english language spoken by
>Australians? :-)
Some would argue it isn't! :-)
GM>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.
Again, the word "emerging" does not appear in scripture. But that
does not mean it isn't there, at least implicitly. It depends on how
one interprets Gn 1. If one see it as literal 24-hour x 6 days then
there is, by definition, no "emerging" of anything. However, if one
interprets the days as God-days (Ps 90:4 2Pet 3:8), and their working
out in time covering long eras, then there seems no reason why the
"image of God" (Gn 1:26-27) could not have emerged like everything
else.
Indeed, since in Hebrew thought man is a unity, "the image of God"
refers to the whole man, ie. his body as well as his soul. If man's
body emerged over time, then it follows that so did the image
of God.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>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
>
GM>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).
Gish's "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", 1986, at page
205 has four photos entitled:
"Two flesh models of Neanderthal Man (Skhul V). From Rusch's Human
Fossils, in Rock Strata and the Bible Record, P. A. Zimmerman, Ed.,
Concordia Publishing House."
>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
It wouldn't matter. My diagram shows a line from Neanderthals to
modern man (assuming H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens were
interfertile). I understand that H. erectus skulls (Cossack man?)
may have been found in Australia (no cracks please! :-)) only 10,000
years ago. If he was H. erectus and he was interfertile with H.
sapiens then he may have interbred with our aborigines? Then a line
should be drawn on my diagram from H. erectus to modern man, or Gn 1
Adam moved down to the H. erectus - H. sapiens split, eg.
\ /
a.Homo erectus _ |
(extinct) \ |
\|b. Gn 1 Adam ("man")
In fact, on reconsideration, it may be that Gn 1 Adam (= "man") is the
genus Homo, expressed collectively from H. erectus to H. sapiens?
This would be in line with the broad categories of Gn 1. The mandate
to rule (Gn 1:28) may only apply to the end-point of this process, ie.
H. sapiens, and merging with the picture of Gn 2.
Indeed this latter may be close to Glenn's position? However, I see a
discontinuity between pre-Homo sapiens hominids, whereas presumably
Glenn's TE view would see them as continuous? In my PC view, only H.
sapiens is fully human and fully in God's image.
The point is that man today is one species both biologically and
theologically (Acts 17:26 ; Rom 5:12ff; 1Cor 15:2-22). The above
model seeks to explain how it could be, both Biblically and
scientifically. I make no claim that it is the final (or even
the right) answer.
Basically my aim is to build a Progressive Creation model that
integrates the facts of science into a Biblical theistic paradigm.
IMHO the above hypothesis does that.
God bless.
Stephen