RE: [asa] First human

When you say:
"at about the same time"

You may mean over the course of over a few hundred years, not in the same year, correct? Just trying to be more precise.

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 10:49 AM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] First human

Hi all,

Just backing up the bus a bit...

One of the curious things about modern humans is that certain significant cultural developments seem to have occurred in isolated populations of humans at about the same time: almost as if there was some kind of DNA "switch" (or something more supernatural!) happening.

So, to be clear, whilst theologians may not have thought much about the idea of modern humans arising in more than one location, anthropologists certainly have. In consequence, it wouldn't be entirely inappropriate to engage in some limited theological speculation on the implications of a scientific "multiple first humans" hypothesis.

Please note that this is a remark about culture, not biology - but, of course, culture IS one of those things that distinguishes the truly human from the purely natural.

Blessings,
Murray

George Murphy wrote:
> I don't know of any mainstream Christian theologians who are arguing for
> such a view, nor did I say that there were any. However, those who
> argue that human sin is just a reality whose historical origin doesn't
> need to be considered should, it seems to me, be open to such a
> possibility. & in any case "regional continuity" (the idea that, e.g.,
> the present population of China is descended at least in part from H.
> erectus) is a view that has been entertained by some
> paleoanthropologists & so, in the spirit that "theology should deal with
> the real world," it's something that theologians should at least think
> about.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gregory Arago <mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> *To:* George Murphy <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> ; Schwarzwald
> <mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com> ; asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 7:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] First human
>
> George hypothesized: "If humans in a theological sense came into
> being in more than one location..."
>
> Who makes this argument George? Any mainstream Christian scholars
> (Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox) come to mind?
>
> This of course relates to the questions asked in the other thread as
> well. But how many 'polygenesis'-promoting theologians are actually
> out there? You say you are not partial to the idea...
>
> Hope to have time and energy to address Jon's OP to this thread
> tomorrow (which will be still later in your 'today'.) - G.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> *To:* Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>; asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 6, 2009 3:15:13 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] First human
>
> Not sure exactly where you're disagreeing. If humans in a
> theological sense came into being in more than one location - an
> idea to which I'm not partial but which I don't consider impossible
> - then the whole idea of "1st human" isn't of much interest. If the
> "first human" in locale A occurred a few thousand years before the
> "first human" developed independently in locale B then the
> "firstness" of A isn't very important. If humanity in a theological
> sense - i.e., hominids to whom God made himself and his will known
> somehow - arose in one locale then there was a first population
> of such humans. But precisely when that occurred - in distinction
> from the fact that it did occur - again doesn't matter a lot. What
> is of theological importance is (a) that there were such humans &
> (b) they quickly turned away from what God had revealed (no doubt in
> a very elementary way) of his will for them.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Schwarzwald <mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 5:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] First human
>
> I agree and disagree, George. I think, even if one were to take
> a relatively gradualistic approach to human origins, you're
> still going to get a "A or not-A" situation. And I think it's
> important to note that the primary mark of 'human' in this case
> would be mental development - and I think minds are prone to
> vastly less "gradual" development than other aspects of life.
> Whatever the case, I personally don't demand someone give me an
> exact mechanism or point in time by which human precursors
> became humans. It's enough to recognize that God Himself knows
> what standard He has in mind, so to speak.
>
> At the same time, even with an explicit point where we have a
> "first human" - even if this point is not at all gradualistic,
> or even not purely naturalistic in development - I would agree
> that God's interest is not restricted to humans alone. Humanity
> (and perhaps any being with a rational soul/nature) may have a
> particular relationship to and with God, but for a while now
> I've rejected this idea that "God only cares about humans", or
> worse, that the entire point of creation was to produce humanity
> and that nothing else matters or mattered. Even by Genesis 1,
> God created the heavens and earth, animals and fish and plants,
> etc, and saw this all as "good". I tend to think God's interest
> spans very, very wide.
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:50 PM, George Murphy
> <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com <mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> If I may butt in, it seems to me that this whole discussion
> is rather pointless theologically. If only "humans" (which
> in a theological sense need not be equated 1 - 1 with
> members of H. sapiens) were really of interest to God then
> there would be some point in trying to decide who's in and
> who's out. But there's no reason to assume that only humans
> ARE of interest to God.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* dfsiemensjr <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> *To:* tandyland@earthlink.net
> <mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, October 05, 2009 2:02 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] First human
>
> Jon,
> You note the problem, which springs from the normal
> assumptions of formal logic. Everything is divided into
> A and non-A. It works with some things, but not
> generally. To take the common example, there are clearly
> some men who are bald and some who are not bald, but
> there is no way to draw a precise line bet\ween the two
> classes because of the fuzzy middle. Similarly, t\here
> are individuals who are clearly members of /Homo sapiens
> sapiens/, and in the past there were members labeled
> /Homo/ that were not, let alone the other genera leading
> up to /Homo/. But to draw a line on what is essentially
> a continuum is a futile demand.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:50:42 -0500 "Jon Tandy"
> <tandyland@earthlink.net
> <mailto:tandyland@earthlink.net>> writes:
>
> 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>
> [mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>>
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 * <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> $5,000 a Week For Life
> Publishers Clearing House winner annouced on NBC. Enter
> now.
> <http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/c?cp=v6iDF4ERlLqYjh6bm9LO7QAAJ1C299ic4kQXCDEcUzIPh2aFAAQAAAAFAAAAAArXIzwAAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkBmQAAAAA=>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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.

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 14:42:48 2009