RE: [asa] M-Genesis

Hi Coope,
 
There simply must have been a 'first human,' don't you agree? Some people have an aversion to the term 'first,' as for example in 'first cause,' yet this does nothing to refute the historical truth. As for me, I find the anti-first approach rather self-defeating, often masked behind process philosophies that undermine origins and first human views.
 
Can you please specify more precisely why it might be 'confusing and conflicting' to articulate an 'Adamic view'? It seems to me quite promising and ecumenical. You said you 'suppose' - is this speculation, self-reflection or a guess or are you pretty sure about it? Do you prefer to abandon a 'first human' for a 'degree' approach rather than an approach that recognizes human beings as a unique 'kind'? If it's 'degree' you are suggesting then one can get away with something like Hutton's 'no beginning, no end,' which is pretty inconvenient for Gospel eschatology.

As for evolution's 'elbow room,' I like this analogy. Let me add another that represents my alternative view, the notion of 'boxing-out' in basketball, in which elbows are/can be effectively used. Yes, nothing much wrong with allowing evolution its respective 'elbow room' as long as (big IF) it doesn't commit fouls by using its elbows too much. Evolution has been known to foul out of games many times (sit down hegemony)!
 
Let evolution have the space it deserves in the academy, no more, no less. But if it tries to dictate to human-social thought (e.g. sociobiology, evo psychology, Dennett's 'freedom evolves,' etc.), it better expect to get 'boxed-out' and its elbows clipped by a better rebounder of what is meaningful about human existence. Evolutionary theory rightfully possesses (read: should possess) a small voice wrt the *meaning* of human existence, that is, unless a person would closely wed their theology with biology and naturalism (e.g. Dobzhansky's The Biological Basis of Human Freedom, 1954).
 
Even among the physicists who are professionally closed upon physical things few would argue with this. But due care is rarely given, priority often jumbled, theology appropriated uncritically (sometimes falsely wed), giving evolution an illegitimate 'elbow room' monopoly across-the-disciplines in which nothing and no one can be said to challenge its sovereignty. In many people's minds, evolution and change are synonymous, everything changes, therefore everything evolves. I've seen little from TE/ECs to defend this inflated and misleading view. 
 
There are other more meaningful things, like Genesis and the creation stories in many world religions that serve alongside 'science' for understanding humanity, art and music, culture, sports, being a few others. Much of the attitude that insists 'science is objective and anything subjective is unscientific' is an echo of yesteryear, not something that will unify and unite in today's academic landscape. The clock has already chimed in some areas of the academy, while some retiring scholars have not yet heard it or recognized the transformation.
 
About a 'nice name' for the view you express, I'd say Adamic anthropology, which recognizes the legitimate meaning of Adam and Eve in human history, which encourages people talking *more* about them and not less, is a good place to start. There is a problem with anthropology in N. America (and elsewhere) when empirical and pragmatic, neo-positivist scholars (whether in socio-cultural, linguistic, archaeological or bio-physical anthropologies) exercise a majority over those anthropologists more inclined to philosophy and theology than to statistics and mathematics (check out Sorokin's Fads and Foibles in Modern Sociology for a parallel criticism of 20th century American sociology). What exists is a quantitatively-dominated arena, wherein such approaches as Marvin Harris' 'cultural materialism' are recognized as authoritative views in the field. Philosophy is once again snubbed - anthropologists recording their direct-participatory observations with
 little regard for loving wisdom.
 
Your daughter would be good to discover those anthropologists who support the fundamental assumptions that she should not be forced to give up because the current 'scientific' consensus disqualifies (or silences) it. Such people are out there and hope exists for more. If you'd like to put us in touch, I'd be glad to field her questions or respond to her thoughts and to hear her experiences as well.
 
Kind regards,
Greg
 

--- On Wed, 8/20/08, George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
To: asa@calvin.edu
Received: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 7:50 PM

Hi Greg,
 
The Adamic terminology seems to apply only to a first human approach and contrary to scientific arguments for evolution.  So, I suppose, using the term “Adamic view” would be confusing and conflicting.  This is because M-Genesis recognizes homo sapiens existence prior to Adam (allowing evolution its elbow room) and sees a literal Adam that came later as declared in chapter 2 (made from “dust” and given something extremely important – a living soul).   Is there a nice name for this view? 
 
A bit off topic, but someone here recently said that anthropology has more atheist than many other fields.  Is this true?  My daughter is on her way to college and is finally decided to get a degree in anthropology, so I am curious about what she might encounter with other students.
 
 
“Coope”
 
 
 

From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:56 PM
To: George Cooper; asa@calvin.edu; Dehler, Bernie
Subject: RE: [asa] M-Genesis
 

One way to approach the topic that does not dodge the question of 'literal/real' Adam and Eve is to apply the qualifier 'Adamic' to the human-social sciences. Thus, one has an Adamic anthropology, an Adamic sociology, an Adamic psychology, etc. The 'first man' ideology (which could be a reality) is after all embraced by no less than four world religions, showing it is not limited to evangelical Christianity.

G.A.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 20 22:30:54 2008