Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

I agree with David. When I said the proposition of whether the individual had the IOG was undecided, I did not intend to allow the conclusion "therefore we can eat them." As David says, the fact that we don't eat highly intelligent animals (chimps, dolphins, dogs, ...) would also apply to such a creature. And I would argue for a very strong dose of giving the benefit of the doubt to such an individual. After all only God knows the heart, and presumably only God knows whether a given individual who doesn't come from a background we know is human bears His image. And I would contend that we would have an obligation to endeavor to evangelize such creatures because only God knows, as only God knows who th elect are.
 
Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

----- Original Message ----
From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: John Burgeson (Burgy) <burgytwo@juno.com>
Cc: williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:31:51 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Question for all the theistic evolutionists

Suppose further that he is raised as a normal human and winds up
holding down a good job, performing as a citizen, etc. Does he then
possess the IOG?

At the very least, I would think some sort of ethical precautionary principle would kick in, and we'd treat him as if he possessed the IOG, even if we couldn't be sure.

But why suppose this and not something else? Why not suppose the Neanderthal clone baby grows up to build a communication device, calls the mother ship, and summons all the Neanderthals from Alpha Centauri who left Earth 50,000 years ago to return?

Or is the more reasonable assumption, given what we actually know about Neanderthal biology and behavior, that the Neanderthal clone baby would behave in some ways we would consider human-like but in other ways that we would consider more animal-like, and that he would have zero capacity to hold down a job and appear in Geico commercials?

It seems to me that the actual scientific record we have so far about Neanderthals strongly suggests the latter. (And here I'd suggest the "we could eat them" in terrorem argument is misplaced. Most of us would feel ethically compelled not to raise very intelligent animals such as chimps and bottlenenose dolphins for food; I'm sure we'd feel the same about Neanderthals regardless of whether we considered them human).

On 3/23/07, John Burgeson (Burgy) <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
> Bill asked: "Suppose I accept as fact your and Glenn's claim that
> there is no rational basis for claiming that such beings do not have

> the image of God. That does not justify claiming that
> they do have the image of God, only that the proposition is undecided."
>
> I can buy that. What I cannot buy is the claim that, since it is

> undecided, such creatures do NOT possess the IOG. That leads to the
> obvious claim that it would be perfectly OK to eat them. Or put them
> in a zoo.
>
> Another thought experiment. Using time extraction technology, which I

> have not yet invented due to lack of time, we extract a small
> Neanderthal infant from -- say 350K years ago. How would we regard
> him? Suppose further that he is raised as a normal human and winds up

> holding down a good job, performing as a citizen, etc. Does he then
> possess the IOG?
>
> Burgy
>
>
>
> www.burgy.50megs.com

>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Mar 24 22:01:24 2007