You are assuming of course that our biological physical anthropology is related to our theological antrhopology. Why is it the case that ancient modern Homo Sapiens were "imago dei" man? Why is it the case that Homo Erectus was not "imago dei" man? My contention remains that possesing imago dei, whatever that is, is not likely to produce any scientific evidence of such.
On Tue Feb 26 10:12 , "David Opderbeck"
Browsing the magazine rack at Barnes & Noble last night on a latte run with my daughter, I noticed this story in Scientific American, reporting on a genetic study that suggests modern humans may have intebred with Homo Erectus: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=lovers-not-fighters ("TLF," for those of you without teenage daughters, is text message lingo for "true love forever"). The study, of course, is highly controversial, and the story suggests various possible flaws with the genetic analysis. But it's intruiging when we think about how our Biblical theological anthropology relates to our biological physical anthropology. Could "imago dei" man have interacted with, and romanced, other races of men whose theological story we don't have and who have long ago gone extinct?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 26 2008 - 10:38:53 EST