RE: What is "human" - the grey zone (was Re: [asa] Two questions... (biological bottlenecking with Adam and Eve))

This whole issue of “morally accountable” is totally hollow to a person qua scientist. Therefore, I do not see how one can integrate the Christian faith with evolutionary theory. There is much criticism of ID for requiring God to “interfere.” However, is there no interference from God when one supposes that He has something to do with “non-humans” become “humans?” It seems to me that theistic evolutionists are “punctuated equilibrium” IDers.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg [muzhogg@netspace.net.au]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:11 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: What is "human" - the grey zone (was Re: [asa] Two questions... (biological bottlenecking with Adam and Eve))

Hi Moorad,

I guess the bottom line is that I simply don't see WHY we need a sharp human/non-human distinction when we already have a theological tradition which allows that God takes into account the moral ability of an individual before judging that person's moral accountability on the basis of (1) that person's moral ability; and (2) that person's ability to respond to God.

The way I figure it, for any particular individual creature -- whether we adjudge that individual to be "human" or not -- my view is that God can well determine the extent to which that creature does, or does not, "measure up".

Here I'd suggest that actually giving far more credence to Christian theology than you perhaps recognize. The fact is that I think that our primary theological datum ought to be God's revelatory and redemptive work in Christ. And what matters to me is not where some far-distant biological ancestor stands in respects of Christ, but where we who are fully human by any definition stand in respects of Christ.

I realize, of course, that for many people the question of human origins is a major one - all I'm saying is that I personally don't feel it to be even a minor problem.

This is because it seems to me that the central objection seems to be this issue of establishing moral accountability. And the basic argument seems to boil down to the claim that unless we can establish the moral accountability of our ancestors then we have no grounds for claiming moral accountability for ourselves.

But to me, our own moral accountability is so obvious that any such argument is entirely redundant. I simply don't need a hypothesis about what constitutes the "human" (hence the "morally accountable") as opposed to the "non-human" (the "morally non-accountable") and when the transition took place. All I need to know is that we are (or more significantly *I am*) morally accountable.

By way of some small analogy, I think a parallel can be drawn with our use of language. To argue that unless we can identify a point at which our ancestors became morally accountable we are rejecting moral accountability for ourselves makes no more sense to me than to argue that unless we can identify when our ancestors developed language (or abstract reasoning, or whatever) we therefore are not capable of using language (or abstract reasoning, or whatever). It just seems to me a non-sequiter.

In short the central claim -- that we need to identify a point of non-human to human transition in order to make sense of that which God has done in Christ seems to me little more than a theological red-herring, although I of course recognize that a great many people see it in quite a different light.

Blessings,
Murray

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> It seems that when you say that “I don't see this as raising any particularly thorny theological problems (!)” you are giving more credence to evolutionary theory than the Christian faith. Why don’t you say that there is a thorny evolutionary problem in the continuity of the evolutionary process that does not allow for a sharp nonhuman-human discontinuous transition that fails it to be reconciled with the Christian faith?
>
> Moorad

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

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 16 21:36:11 2009