>I think this turned into quite an interesting discussion and I really
>appreciate the contributions made by several people. The way I look
>at problems like this is I think strongly affected by my experimentalist
>up bringing. So I really enjoyed John Rylanders posts as they helped
>reinforce what I think are some basic points in the way science works,
>especially if one's view of science is strongly tied to the empirical,
>as mine is. I also enjoyed David Bowman's devil's advocate post.
>
> "It is not certain that all is uncertain, to the glory of skepticism"
>
> "But is it probable that probability yields certainty?"
> -- Pascal
>
>Now, to your question. Given my druthers, I guess I'd rather not decide
>who is human. Suppose I had to?.
In reality absolutely every believer MUST make this decision. I don't think
it is possible to deal with the evidence an not make some sort of choice The
old earthers' who have no problem with evolution are absolutely forced to
make a distinction. Here is why. If we evolved from the common ancestor of
Chimps and us, then certain facts face us. First chimps aren't human and
thus aren't spiritual. The ancestors of the chimps, the early primates,
aren't human and so aren't spiritual.. So unless we are willing to believe
that chimps "devolved" from spiritual man, in all likelihood, the common
ancestor was not spiritual. Therefore, given the fact that we ARE
spiritual, someone between the common ancestor and us BECAME spiritual. Was
it australopithecus, habilis, erectus or archaic homo sapiens who became
spiritual? While we may not want to make a choice, we are forced to either
make a choice or bury our heads and avoid a choice.
Progressive creationists make the choice by having mankind created not
evolved. But if the man who was created was anatomically modern, then they
have excluded H. erectus, Neanderthal and archaic Homo sapiens. The choice
IS made. If H. erectus is the choice, once again a choice has been made.
Young-earthers also must make the choice. They often say that Neanderthal/H.
erectus/habilis are men who are living in hard times after the Flood and
their bones show how hard it was. In any event a choice IS made. If
Neanderthal and H. erectus are spiritual/human as many YEC leaders say, then
they believe in a lot of evolution because H. erectus did look a lot
different from us.
The very existence of these fossil men forces a choice.
>This reminds me of when, as a grad
>student, I overheard an argument between one of my advisors (probably
>the most brilliant man I've ever known) and a young faculty member.
>They were discussing which formulation of mechanics was more
>fundamental, a direct formulation in terms of Newtons Laws or the
>alternate formulation in terms of least action. Reading through a biography
>of Richard Feynman lately made me realise that this question actually
>has some rather important metaphysical implications. In his early days
>at MIT, Feynman adamently refused to solve any problem by the principle
>of least action. It was too mysterious. Well, I'm digressing as usual :).
Least action has the metaphysical viewpoint that the object is active in its
own motion. Mysterious is correct.
>My professor said that he really didn't want to have to choose, but if
>a gun were pointed to his head and his life depended on his answer, he
>would go with Sir Isaac.
>
>So, my answer is that I would rather not decide. If a gun were at my head,
>I would go with Glenn. But my heart is not in this answer. When you say:
>
>>While Jim and others may not agree, I see no other way of determining who is
>>human.
>
>I would rather say, perhaps we shouldn't try to determine. Perhaps we have
>no way of determining. Maybe its undecidable ;-).
I fully understand the lack of enthusiasm. I would not have chosen the
position I now advocate if I had not been forced there by the data. As a
geoscientist I have had to come face to face throughout my career with data
that clearly said "What Christians are teaching is not correct." The
greatest problem facing Christian apologetics concerns things dug up from
the earth--radioisotopes, minerals which show that the flood wasn't global,
mudcracks, footprints, burrows, fossils of men and animals, and artefacts.
Unfortunately Christians are not well educated in these areas and don't
fully understand the utter depth of the problem. Those who become educated
in these areas often leave the faith taking their knowledge with them. I
tried for years to avoid the problem by various rather creative
possibilities. But when the day ends, I have to look at myself and decide
if I honored the scientific data or ignored it. While I too wish i didn't
have to choose, I have made the best choice I could given the data.
I want to relate a story told me by a good friend who got a PHD in biology
wanting to be involved in the creation\evolution debate. When he got out,
he realized that the really tough issues are in geology. he then made the
move in that direction and now is a very knowledgeable geoscientist. The
entire issue of evolution lies inside of the rocks of the earth. All the
evolution we see today is minor compared to what the record of life tells us
from below our feet.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm