Re: The man with the rhesus monkey brain (was Re:

pdd@gcc.cc.md.us
16 Sep 1996 21:45:46 EDT

PD>>if we are right, then evolutionists should be ignoring cranial capacity
PD>>in developing their evolutionary sequence for man.

GR>It should also be a wake-up call to Christians who suggest that the fossil m
GR>are merely monkey men. This is the view of Hugh Ross, Ronald Youngblood and
GR>Gleason Archer. Marvin Lubenow, the young earth creationist who wrote Bones
GR>Contention, believes that modern humans were on the scene before the
GR>Australopithecines. (see p.178) I presume this means that he does not belie
GR>that Homo erectus is human in the theological sense.

GR>As to ignoring cranial capacity, it is a fact that the normal temporal
GR>sequence of fossils is one of generally increasing cranial capacities. It i
GR>an observation which must be made. My point is that old-earth creationists
GR>various stripes are putting entirely too much emphasis upon brain size as a
GR>measure of humanness. The image of God is not measured by cranial capacity.

Any model that ascribes evolution to the development of man that
includes the sequence of fossils in question needs to fully address the
important point that we have made... that a non-evolving God-image, and
everything that goes with that, does not require an evolution in cranial
size. The spirit and intellect is an independent variable. Right now
that creates a paradox as it is difficult to formulate other
evolutionary mechanisms to account for the change. The customary
assumptions are not adequate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

---"Putting a question correctly is one thing and finding the answer to itis something quite different."Anton Chekhov------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Paul Durhampdd@gcc.cc.md.us
to:   IN:GRMorton@gnn.comcc:   IN:evolution@calvin.edu