RE: [asa] M-Genesis

Hi Coope,

Greg said: 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?

The “Adamic view” is painting with too large a brush. Some will assume it
means all mankind came from a human like us, and for those that do, your
term should work fine. Unfortunately, it would be in conflict with views
that favor pre-Adamites, evolved or otherwise, prior to the creation of
Adam. This, of course, includes M-Genesis.

Greg: Do you prefer to abandon a 'first human' for a 'degree' approach
rather than an approach that recognizes human beings as a unique 'kind'?

On the contrary, M-Genesis claims that a first human was specially formed as
stated in chapter 2, and was the first human given a “living soul” (KJV).
M-Genesis claims that prior to Adam were other humans that may have formed
by evolutionary processes, which would be another process in accordance to
God’s own design within the framework of His physics. For pre-Adamites
having evolved, there may be no first PreAdam for the reasons seen in
evolution – where varieties transform slowly into new species.

Greg: 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)!

Today, evolution can no longer help itself from others too close to it since
it is now 7 – ½ ft. tall, 250 lbs., and very agile. We can make more foul
rules to slow it down, but it is definitely a solid player. I liken
evolution today with heliocentrism of the mid 17th century. New
interpretation of scripture was required in order to solve the problem that
was extended by Aquinas when Aristotle/Ptolemy philosophy was introduced in
Europe.

Evolution, however, strikes much deeper than heliocentrism, and it is not
about to foul out of the game. M-Genesis -- a new interpretation
(apparently) -- does not appear to suffer at all from the weight of
evolutionary views. New evidence from astronomy, as in Galileo’s day, has
come forth that compares favorably with a reasonably straight forward
interpretation.

Greg: 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).

Agreed. Evolution is only detrimental where religious views contain
objective elements that are in conflict with it. This seems to be the case,
however, for most literal views. M-Genesis is one exception. But it is not
exceptional in order to escape this conflict, else it would be an ad-hoc
approach, which it is not.

Greg: 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.

Since evolution theory is science, it is subject to challenge constantly by
science. Any who can dethrone it should win a Nobel Prize. Certainly there
are those who have woven it into the philosophical views (this is where
fouls will occur), but the science behind evolution will always cause it to
be treated like any other scientific theory; it must stand scrutiny
continually.

Greg: 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.

I fear you are correct and I have argued against some of these already (eg.
Parallel Universes). However, science is still well-defined, and many are
calling fouls on those that deserve the penalty.

Greg: 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.

So, if I say, “M-Genesis embraces Adamic anthropology”, others will
understand that it is referring to a real Adam as a first human (spiritual)
and also claims that pre-Adamites evolved? The two points are important,
but no name for this view pops into my mind. [I am not asking, of course,
for you to agree with this view, but it would be nice to given it better
expression.]

Greg: 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.

Thanks much for the offer, Greg. She is still within her shell in this
matter and only recently has listened to me about evolutionary theory, which
I know little.

You have presented a very interesting idea, too. I wonder if ASA members
could offer mentor time for college Christians who will likely be struggling
with their faith while in college? Has anything like this been offered to
college churches? Perhaps the ASA forum site could be utilized for this.
At the moment, I am partial to helping college kids for some reason. J

Thanks Greg for your thoughts,

George

From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:30 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu; George Cooper
Subject: 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.

  _____

Instant message from any web browser! Try the new
<http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php> Yahoo! Canada
Messenger for the Web BETA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Aug 21 10:12:19 2008