[asa] First human

Let me rephrase Gregory's challenge more explicitly, as a statement. If
there were no point at which there were "humans" as opposed to "non-humans",
then we are not humans and thus we are *just* animals. The acknowledgement
that there *are* humans, when prior to some point there *were not* humans,
seems to be a reasonable and necessary assertion that we could all agree on.

The problem for this question in practical terms is defining what is human,
what *was* human as differentiated from what was previously not human, and
when did that change occur. Gregory has stated that he is not so concerned
about *when* or *how* (or probably even *what*), but rather simply *that*.
I think *that* is the easy question, based on the presumption that we are
human, and that we somehow know how to define what human is. (But is that a
reasonable presumption? What is "human" Gregory, in sociological terms,
since that is what you are more interested in than biological terms?)

The problem of differentiating one species from another at one "point" in
time is probably unresolvable. If organisms gradually change over time, at
what point can you say that it's now a new organism? It seems a matter of
almost arbitrary definition, and one that can only be done in retrospect and
with broad categorization, not identifying one specific mutant. One
classification that is used is the ability to interbreed, but I'm not sure
that is still a valid (or the only valid) distinguishing factor that
biologists use to distinguish one species from another.

Now, I can see it theoretically possible that a "mutant" could arise that
would be distinguishable from its parent, viable in terms of survival, and
thus constitute a distinct moment in time for a branching lineage. Whether
this can be identified for non-human to human, in a purely biological sense,
I don't know. I don't believe that what makes us human or image-of-God is
purely biological, but must also constitute non-temporal things (mind,
spirit, agency, law, accountability, etc.).

What I see happen in both evolution deniers and evolution supporters (among
Christians) is an absolutist position on what *must be* or *what must have
been* biologically. Biologists like Ken Miller defend the gapless
progression of species (including humankind) with just as much evangelical
fervor as evolution deniers, in so strongly opposing the "God of the gaps"
fallacy as if a biological gap would somehow invalidate basic philosophical
truth. Yet they can never prove that this was the case. My position is
that there could have been a "gap" or gaps (origin of first life included),
but I am just hesitant to base my faith or lack of faith on the existence of
biological gaps, knowing how many details that science has so far been able
to fill in.

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Gregory Arago
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:53 AM
To: Schwarzwald; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

Hiya Schwarzwald,

Yes, you are indeed correct in saying (other than it seems you mixed the
names):

"I don't think Murray [i.e. Gregory] was asking for a specific *when* A and
B are distinguished, or even necessarily a *how* A and B are distinguished,
but simply *that* A and B are, in fact, distinguished. That there was,
somehow and someway, a 'first man' - and that man is distinct from non-man."

Yes, I was asking, not for a specific *when* or *how*, but rather for a
*that*. This is precisely an issue of great significance, imho. It would
surprise me if it was *not* an issue of importance for others too. In other
words, it is the 'degree or kind' question of old.

It seems that Murray has agreed with this, i.e. that *there was [*must have
been*] a 'first man',* which is "distinct from non-man," however, with
certain (imo reasonable) qualifications.

- G.

  _____

From: Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2009 1:50:48 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] Re: Reading Genesis theologically NOT historically

Heya Murray,

Just a short comment here. I'm in agreement with quite a lot of your
perspective (sounds like you've taken in quite some interesting observations
from aboriginal beliefs/practices!), but I don't think Murray was asking for
a specific *when* A and B are distinguished, or even necessarily a *how* A
and B are distinguished, but simply *that* A and B are, in fact,
distinguished. That there was, somehow and someway, a 'first man' - and that
man is distinct from non-man. Pretty simple, and I agree with Gregory about
such a man existing, though I agree with you in turn about what the real
importance of those passages were. So I guess I'm somewhere in the middle
(though your take on Paul is also fascinating. You should be writing
articles, Murray.)

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au> wrote:

Hi Greg,

p.p.s. you wrote: "sin isn't primarily an issue of disobedience but of
relationship" - this is agreeable. Once you say 'degree' to a human-social
scientist, however, there is a problem (though admittedly not to all of
them/us) - it *is* a full-frontal attack on HSS sovereignty (even if you
didn't know this when you spoke it).

This is a really curious remark - but I suspect my perplexity is due to the
brevity of your comment.

There are some things which - without any protestation - are a matter of
degree - colours on a spectrum, volume of noise, distance from a fixed
point. And I can't imagine that such facts constitute a "full-frontal attack
on HSS".

So I can only guess that the issue is that if we can't precisely delineate
the "human" then all that is generally regarded as "human" collapses into
the merely "natural" leaving no place for a HSS perspective. Is that about
it?

Blessings,
Murray

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

  _____

Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/> All-new
Yahoo! Mail

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Oct 5 11:51:40 2009