>This is the real show-stopper to Glenn's Homo habilis Adam theory. I
>give full credit to Glenn for taking Genesis 1-11 seriously - most
>theistic evolutionists would dismiss as "concordist" any attempt to
>harmonise Genesis 1-11 with modern science. But Glenn's desire to
>harmonise Noah's Flood with the geological evidence for the infilling
>of the Mediterranean basin 5 mya has led him to embrace an extreme
>"old-Adam" position which is irreconcilable with the basic
>theological thrust of the New Testament, namely that Adam had to be
>fully MAN, in order to be our representative.
I thought MAN-hood was determined by bearing the image of God. Many
christians in the last century thought that Africans could not be human
because they looked so different from us. They believed that they were a
different species. This view was held so widely that the United States
Supreme Court succombed to it. And remember that hese views were held by the
majority of Europeans and Americans. An interesting quote is:
"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public
opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in
the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time
of the Declaration of Independence and when the Consitution of
the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history
of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be
mistaken.
"They had for more than a century before been regarded as
beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate
with the white race, either in social or political relations, and
so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully
be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold
and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic
whenever a profit could be made by it. It was regarded as an
axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of
disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every
grade acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in
matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the
correctness of this opinion..." Roger B. Taney, "Dred Scott vs
Sandford," The Annals of America, 8, 1850-1857", Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1976 pp.441-442.
Basing humanity upon outward looks reminds one of 1 Sam. 16:7, "Man looks at
the outward appearance, the the Lord looks at the heart."
While this does not prove that any earlier hominid species bore the image of
God, it does render void the objections to them being human, which are based
upon appearance only. Your argument against my view is based solely upon
their appearance in spite of the fact that even several of the authors you
have cited agree that all forms of homo had a language. Remember it was God
who taught Adam to speak. If they spoke, they must be descendants of Adam.
glenn