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

Gregory asked: *Are you an advocate of polygenesis in contrast to
monogenesis of human beings, qua human, Dick? Are you David?*

I respond: I have wrestled long and hard with this question. The evidence
seems very strong against *biological* monogenesis, as far as I understand
it. And this is one reason why I take the position that the meaning of
"human" cannot be restricted to the biological. In whatever form of
literature Gen. 1-4 is cast (not, in my view, a "literal" form), I think it
does communicate that all human beings spring from one common source, even
from a primal pair. Therefore I would hold at the very least to a
"spiritual" monogenesis: that which most truly makes us "human" began at
one root and was imparted by God "beyond" in some way what the human species
would have become through natural evolution alone. Others will take a
different view, but this is my personal best effort at a general synthesis.

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

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>wrote:

> 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 I concur with David about the notion of 'race' being considered outdated.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"
>
> 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)
> 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),
> including this one:
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Yahoo! Canada Toolbar :* Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now! <http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/>
>

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 11:07:23 2009