RE: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

Hi Gregory, you wrote:

"Are you an advocate of polygenesis in contrast to monogenesis of human
beings ."

Whether Adam was created de nouveau or whether he had natural parents is
something I can't answer. Where is the data? Show me his tummy and then I
can tell you. As recorded on Egyptian pyramids, "Atum" was created.
Adapa/Adamu was created. Adam was created. We don't have a whole lot of
created individuals to use for comparison, do we? God created great sea
creatures in Genesis yet we know they had natural forerunners. I'm
reluctant to answer question or make statements where I can't possibly know
the answer. As in this response to my statement for example:

"Could one billion Chinese people have Adamic roots or even a smidgen of
Adamic blood? No, I don't think so."

Yes, Dick, they could! And they could *all* be created in the image of God,
our (nash/notre) Creator too!

Here the responder couldn't possibly substantiate this statement. It is
simply off the top of his head. China has a long history going back to the
same date as the flood. "Created"? How? When? I try to avoid this kind
of rhetorical argument. I stick with where the evidence takes me.

DNA markers are rapidly replacing color and morphology indicators, I agree.
But we can't observe one's DNA. Nearly every day I soak in a hot tub in the
Centreville, Virginia Lifetime Fitness facility. In Centreville there is a
high concentration of Koreans. On any given day half to three quarters of
those in the tub are of Korean descent. I don't need DNA samples to know
which are which. We don't have to look for DNA markers where we can see the
physical evidence as plain as day. And for convenience sake in discussing
human migration patterns it helps to be able to say Native American, or
black African, or native Chinese, or South American Indian, or Australian
Aborigine, and so on. I hope nobody is offended.

Also you wrote: "The name 'Adam' as meaning 'human being' is nothing to
scoff at simply in order to bow to biological 'evidence' (from thousands of
years ago). Those who hold such a position of denying 'Adam = a first man or
two first persons' are simply muddled about their anthropology as much as
Darwin was muddled about his theology."

You are speaking as a credentialed anthropologist, no doubt.

Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:42 AM
To: 'David Opderbeck'; Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

Dick Fischer (surprisingly) wrote:

"Could one billion Chinese people have Adamic roots or even a smidgen of
Adamic blood? No, I don't think so."

Yes, Dick, they could! And they could *all* be created in the image of God,
our (nash/notre) Creator too!

I concur with David about the notion of 'race' being considered outdated.
This past summer I was at the International Sociological Association Forum
in Barcelona and sat during a session presentation by the President of the
ISA about 'race' in which he denounced the term as 'unscientific.' At the
end of the series of presentations I stood up and made a couple of
observations about the panel, which was focussed on the relationship between
natural sciences and human-social sciences; a very interesting discussion
indeed. Then I asked a question to him; if he doesn't consider 'race' to be
a scientific concept, then does he consider the term 'ethnicity' likewise to
be non-scientific. He simply responded, yes.

I'm sure all of the people in the room who are studying ethnicity felt
caught in a conundrum. Was the President of the ISA disqualifying them from
being 'scientists'? I would disagree with him rather than with them because
their scholarly work is valuable in its own way. One of the Vice-Presidents,
for example, is more an anthropologist than a sociologist and does
ethnographic studies as the basis for his sociological research. So, this
leaves space for dialogue between Dick and David and 'using race' as a
descriptive category and its meaning(s).

It seems the term 'common descents' rather than 'common descent' could be
applied to some people's views here. That is, not as only a biological
(racial) category, but also as a historically binding cultural (or ethnic)
category. Are you an advocate of polygenesis in contrast to monogenesis of
human beings, qua human, Dick? Are you David?

The position that some people seem to be taking is that there was *no*
single first human being or single human pair; its all a matter of degree
and not kind, murky grey with no 'first' possible to distinguish. Whereas
from a simple linguistic perspective, this makes no sense! The name 'Adam'
as meaning 'human being' is nothing to scoff at simply in order to bow to
biological 'evidence' (from thousands of years ago). Those who hold such a
position of denying 'Adam = a first man or two first persons' are simply
muddled about their anthropology as much as Darwin was muddled about his
theology. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with believing in a flesh and
blood, real first person named 'Adam,' even if one doesn't restrict themself
to a purely biological meaning. And this is exactly the argument that Dick
is making: 'race is biological' whereas David O. is showing that not to be
the case exclusively.

Glad to hear you speaking about 'global society' Dick (coming from one who
is based out of a global sociology department)! Just please don't invite me
for a national green card, cuz I don't want one, thanks. Indeed, 'polite' is
a polite way of putting it speaking for any single nation-state/civil
society collective! Yes, we can.

Warm regards,

Gregory

--- On Fri, 2/27/09, Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article
To: "'David Opderbeck'" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Friday, February 27, 2009, 6:44 AM

Our global society is homogenizing that's right and the subject of race
conjures up images of discrimination and slavery and all that. Yes I know.
We're a polite society now. But you're meandering off the path a bit.
Could one billion Chinese people have Adamic roots or even a smidgen of
Adamic blood? No, I don't think so. There is nothing that suggests any of
Noah's kin ventured any further east than Persia. Furthermore, Jewish
people are exceptionally clannish. They hardly marry outside their race at
all. And even if a few adventurous Semites did venture to the Far East, and
I don't think they did, it would be a drop in the bucket only.

To answer your question, the "races" were long divided before the flood.
The Ice Man washed out of the Tyrolean Alps carbon dated to about 5,200
years ago and he didn't look any different than people in that same region
do today. Hamites did go south and "Cush" means "black" in Hebrew, Mizraim
went to Egypt, but that's about the only connection. Egyptian pyramids show
men in different colors depicting the different "races."

Dick Fischer, GPA president

Genesis Proclaimed Association

"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

 <http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/> www.genesisproclaimed.org

-----Original Message-----
From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 10:47 AM
To: Dick Fischer
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

But in anthropology, "race" is an outdated notion. We can discern
morphological features common to a time, place or region from skeletons,
which is not surprising, given that some areas of the human genome that
determine some morphological features such as facial or eye structure or
skin pigmentation can come under selection pressure. But there are no
meaningful criteria for dividing these features into "races." Rather, we
are all human beings with a continuum of variations in things like facial
structure and skin tone. I refer you to the American Anthropological
Association Statement on "Race" ( <http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm>
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm) and a Wiki on the term "Negroid"
which has some good links about why "race" is an outdated folk notion(
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid), including this one:
<http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-08.htm>
http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-08.htm

Do you think the so-called "negroid race" descends from Ham and bears the
mark of Cain?

David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

  _____

  <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg>
<http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere
on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 27 10:31:21 2009