Re: [asa] First human

Dave S. has put his words closely to the problem being addressed here re: ‘first human’ in saying the following: “But to draw a line on what is essentially a continuum is a futile demand.”   Let me counter this by saying that to posit a continuum where one is not present (or where there are also discontinuities) is a category error. The gradualism and continuum-begging of evolutionary ideology is what makes people insist that *there doesn’t need to be a first…human* when it goes against basic logic. What I am suggesting is that logically there simply *was* a ‘first human’ and we call this ‘first human’ by the name of “Adam.” It is further a sad state of affairs, imo, that Christians have been duped into an “anti-first human” (i.e. evolutionary philosophy) logic to dismiss the reality of Adam into thin air. In doing so, a vast minority of neo-liberal scientist-theologians has compromised the coherency of the Christian message of faith for all.   It seems to me that you are giving far too much credit to biological sciences, Dave, without highlighting the great importance of communication. If 80% of people say the ‘bald man’ (in your example) is indeed ‘bald’ then you’ve got a kind of significant ‘linguistic consensus.’ What is most important is not the ‘grey area’ (of *is* or *is not* bald, as evolutionary logic would dictate), but rather the communicative agreement that people make linguistically with a signifier and a signified. Yet you would dismiss this approach, or so it seems to me that you are saying, on grounds that it is not ‘purely scientific’ when that adjective just doesn’t matter much in this case. So what if it’s not scientific if it serves its purpose and unifies people with a common meaning? *Not scientific* is not synonymous with *not true.* Likewise, there’s no need to ‘elevate evolution’ unnecessarily, as you seem to do.   This is the same challenge for those who *deny Adam.* To *deny Adam* is to argue for a non-Christian, non-Muslim and/or non-Jewish position. *Denying Adam* (i.e. saying openly, trying to promote the biologically-based belief that *Adam was not real*) is heterodox in all of these THREE monotheistic religions.   Murray writes: “we have to deal with "the sufficient amount of which" and not simply "the presence of which”   I disagree that this is true in all cases, though it is surely true in some (see below). In other words, there are times when “the presence of which” is *enough* to have a conversation that offers common-shared understanding. The language of *kind* is sufficient sometimes and it in fact serves on a regular basis *at least* 50% of the Academy to speak this way; i.e. as a scholarly presupposition. It also has served religious thought well to speak of *kind* throughout human history (but since Darwin, this is now in question). The vast minority of *anti-kind* thinkers are simply applying specialist ideas that may not *ever* be (though it seems that the trend is actually *anti-kind* in the ‘west’ these days, in large part due to neo-Darwinist logic and the influx of ‘eastern’ ideas) supported by the public in ‘western’ or ‘post-Christian’ or ‘pre-Islamic’ or ‘non-secular’ nations.   Jon Tandy, in his OP to this thread says: “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.”   I agree that it is both reasonable and necessary, and would be quite surprised if more than a few on this list would resist this position (e.g. Murray and George will surely say, when pressed, that *humans are special*; whereas D. Lamoureux and D. Venema or S. Matheson might not – for the sake of protecting their disciplinary sovereignty. Or perhaps I'm wrong here? It would be interesting to hear D. Campbell pronounce on this!). It should indeed be rather easy to gain a vast majority consensus on this list regarding *the real existence of Adam,* (indeed, it would not be far-fetched to ask ASA to come up with a “We believe in Adam” statement) though the *when* or *how* be left open to various perspectives and thus to friendly dispute. To me it doesn’t even matter if *evolutionary biology concludes otherwise* if the topic is one on which evolutionary biology cannot (according to history and philosophy of science) speak as an authority, even if it
 pretends to do so. Too bad for the inflated egos (e.g. R. Dawkins and P.Z. Meyers) in the Academy!   Jon continues: “I think *that* [there was a ‘first human’] is the easy question, based on the presumption that we are human, and that we somehow know how to define what human is.”   Yes, I agree that it is the easier, but also the more important question. The *where* and *how* questions are considered solvable or approachable only by a positivism that betrays the complexity (or nuance) of the issue and the theology and philosophy necessarily involved. The *that* distinction comes into play in the everyday life perspectives of not just specialists on issues that are of great significance to societies and peoples around the world. One example of this is the new religious ‘green movement,’ which is updating the ‘stewardship’ covenant in our contemporary era, e.g. when ‘anthropogenesis’ in climate change and/or nature’s sustainability is openly acknowledged.   “Whether this [distinct moment] can be identified for non-human to human, in a purely biological sense, I don't know.” – Jon Tandy   I don’t think it can, on the basis that biological sciences have a limited domain. The problem is that biologists tend to (apologies to those who don’t) over-stretch their ‘conclusions’ onto topics that are not explainable within their domain. Of course, I am not a biology-hater or anti-science, by any means! Nevertheless, there is a consistent abuse of other fields by biologists (e.g. sociobiology, eVo psych and current eugenics) so that one simply must protect themselves against biological reductionism by ‘putting biology in its place,’ and telling it when to pipe down. There is thus an understandable sting of pride by many biologists to hear such words about academic sovereignty, especially coming from an admittedly ‘softer’ but also unarguably ‘more complex’ (or ‘higher’) field. Indeed, the ideology of ‘biologism’ is one that is difficult to repeat too often these days, e.g. when someone says something like “there was no
 ‘first human’ because the *real* issue [i.e. according to biologists, but not to others] is about populations.” We need to move beyond such outdated reductionism in the current situation and not entertain such an uncooperative fantasy.   Jon asks: “What is "human" Gregory, in sociological terms, since that is what you are more interested in than biological terms?”   I would simply define ‘human’ as that which began with ADAM and continues today in the name of ‘persons’. A dog is not a person, a dolphin is not a person, an eagle is not a person, a plant is not a person; this part of the classification activity is, of course, obvious. But when the zoologist or biologist would say (actually, the term ‘pontificate’ seems to be suitable here) that the difference between humans and (other) animals is one of *degree, not kind* to an anthropologist or to a psychologist, then there is a serious problem. This is because human-social science (HSS) is based on the uniqueness and specialness of human beings as persons ‘descended’ from Adam (i.e. that vast majority of HSS originated in Adamic/Abrahamic traditions) and for religious persons this means also that human beings are ‘spiritual’ (i.e. ‘by nature’ in NPS language). It’s as simple as that folks (though of course there are many difficult issues
 related, e.g. all of the people on Earth who didn’t inherit or convert to the Adamic tradition and those which Murray has raised, in terms of being cautious), but this opens up the potential for dialogue that has been closed since Darwin’s mistake, which includes the ‘fact’ that Nietzsche correctly saw: “Darwin forgot the spirit”!   Similarly, Murray Hogg asks a fair question: “when does Greg ask the obvious next question: at what point does "human culture" emerge as a discernible entity in an evolutionary scenario?”   It doesn’t at all require an ‘evolutionary scenario’ to say that ‘human culture begins/began with Adam’. Some of you will of course be puzzled by this statement (i.e. thinking how could it *not* require an evolutionary scenario – isn’t that impossible or isn’t there a lack of language to speak/think otherwise?). In fact, it is precisely the ‘advent’ or ‘emergence’ or ‘creation of Adam’ that marks a new level or feature of ‘natural evolution’ (which both Teilhard and Dobzhansky, as well as many others proclaim), or what I would call a ‘post-evolutionary’ or ‘non-evolutionary’ level of discourse (but don’t slip into thinking I mean ‘anti-evolutionary’ here as is commonly meant in America. I don’t mean that at all.). Once we have (in the Earth’s history) conscious, decision-making (and ensouled) human beings we are simply at a level beyond the ‘evolutionary paradigm’s’ explanatory power; we are
 ‘supra-evolution,’ we are ‘outside’ of the possible territory of biological knowledge. To reiterate the obvious that I have stated here at ASA several times: ‘human-made things don’t evolve (into being or having become)’ and these non-evolving ‘changes’ occur once (but not before) there are human beings, i.e. persons after the first pattern of Adam.   One needs another paradigm to an evolutionary one in order to discuss the types of changes that human beings since Adam, made in the image of God, add to the world. Naming animals is just one example. Technology is another that is more visible and hotly discussed in our time. It simply makes *NO SENSE* (i.e. it is illogical) to say ‘technology evolves’ in the same way that ‘natural history changes’ i.e. ‘evolves’ (over time). Anyone stuck on such linguistic choice (and it is a *choice*; i.e. one can intentionally massage their own vocabulary and with it their frame of mind) need only consider (an) alternative(s) and then make the logical choice to *not use* the term ‘evolution’ in such cases.   Jon Tandy writes: “I don't believe that what makes us human or image-of-God is purely biological.”   Amen, Jon! This allows the opportunity for the vertical intersecting with the horizontal and it is an example of ‘putting biology in its place.’ And it displays openness to divine transcendence and immanence that many (perhaps most) evolutionary biologists disallow. TEs of course, are intent on creating space for just such an opportunity, even if they express it as ‘hidden.’ I would be surprised if TEs and ECs didn’t agree with your statement.   And as C. Lyell maintained against the Darwinist rhetoric, “I am most happy and grateful to have you on my side. To have Alfred Wallace on my side as well. And Asa Gray at Harvard. If you three authorities agree that man is a very special species, then God is still very much in our midst.” (1872,quoted in Irving Stone’s The Origin: 726)   And now for something *new* on this channel: The middle ground on this topic of *kind vs. degree* wrt human beings is to allow ALL (or most) natural-physical scientists to say *degree only, not kind,* and to allow that ALL (or most) human-social scientists to say *kind, not just degree.* These two positions can be left in contra-distinction to one another and as non-contradictory, given the sovereignty of the respective realms in today’s multi-versity (i.e. the university is no longer ‘united’ – George Grant). Thus, more discussion is needed about the relationship between HSS and NPS and I *guarantee* that such an activity will help solve ‘the controversy’ in America because most people have a problem not with biological evolution, since most don’t speak that specialised language, but rather with the ‘implications’ of ‘evolution’ for ethics, philosophy and religion, which are for the most part taken for granted and not
 satisfactorily addressed. There’s a biology fixation when it comes to evolutionary theory and its ‘problems.’   I said before to Murray: “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).”   To which he responded: This is a really curious remark…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?”   Yes, that’s about it, precisely! : - ) And it is a BIG, big deal, even if it is not represented in the common ‘science and religion’ literature, especially in North America and Britain (and probably Australia too)!!   Indeed, as Murray says, “some things…are a matter of degree.” This is what Dave S. was saying above, and with which I agree. But without taking the logical next step to say also that “some things are *not* a matter of degree,” i.e. but rather “they are also a matter of *kind* or type or category difference,” much confusion will remain. I contend, along with my ‘brothers and sisters’ in HSS that we can (without any power from NPS to say otherwise) delineate the ‘human’ via “reflexive science,” rather than by “positive science,” the former which distinguishes HSS and the latter which distinguishes NPS. This meets the biological insistence upon *degree only* with a significant objection, and one that I think more people should know is a healthy and responsible position to take. And it will help theology to do its job, rather than to bow to an accommodationist theory that elevates science above theology or which doesn’t
 adequately close the hermeneutic circle.   Warm regards to all, on a beautiful day in Spb, Gregory     “All music is folk music, I ain't never heard no horse sing a song.”– Louis Armstrong   “I know that most men[sic], including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life.” – Lev. N. Tolstoy ________________________________ From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> To: asa@calvin.edu Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 7:50:42 PM Subject: [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 All-new Yahoo! Mail __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer® 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 6 10:59:42 2009