Group
On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:48:50 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>And even if they left no offspring alive today, the fact that they behaved
>like us, made art, jewelry, musical instruments (see my web page), lived in
>tents, made spears, used fire and left some evidence of religious
>activities means that they were most likely spiritual beings.
[...]
Even if we grant that Neandertals:
a) could do all these things claimed by Glenn (which is controversial); and
b) could do them to the same high quality as the Homo sapiens (Cro-
Magnons) who were living at the same time, ie. ca. 40,000 years ago,
(which is almost universally denied); and
c) could do them in the absence of Homo sapiens (which has not been
demonstrated);
it still would *not* show that Neandertals were "spiritual" in the
*Christian* sense of being able to have a relationship with God:
"Man is distinguished by the presence and use of complex symbolism
or, more specifically, of language. While the making of tools and burial
of the dead point to a fairly sophisticated pattern of behavior, it is
language which makes possible the type of RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD which
would be experienced by a being created in the image of God. On this
basis, one can correlate the beginning of man in the full biblical
sense with the evidence of a great cultural outburst about 30,000 to
40,000." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," 1985, pp484-485)
"...what makes humans different is a quality called "spirit." None of the
rest of Earth's creatures possesses it. By "spirit" the Bible means
AWARENESS OF GOD AND CAPACITY TO FORM A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. Worship
is the key evidence of the spiritual quality of the human race, and the
universality of worship is evidenced in altars, temples, and religious
relics of all kinds. Burial of dead, use of tools, or even painting do
not qualify as evidence of the spirit, for non-spirit beings such as bower
birds, elephants, and chimpanzees engage in such activities to a limited
extent. Bipedal tool- using, large-brained primates (called hominids by
anthropologists) may have roamed the earth as long ago as one million
years, but religious relics and altars date back only 8,000 to 24,000
years." (Ross H., "Creation and Time," 1994, pp140-141. My emphasis.)
Glenn never clearly defines up front what his definition of "spiritual" is, but
plays on the vagueness of words. This is a time-honoured Darwinist
strategy, employed by the master himself:
"Perhaps even more disturbing than any particular faults of argument was
Darwin's tendency to resolve all issues at their lowest level. This was
apparent in his discussion of religion. As he had earlier denied that
language was a unique attribute of man, so he was also constrained to deny
that the religious impulse was unique to man. He conceded that if religion
be taken to mean a "belief in unseen or spiritual agencies," then it would
appear to be almost universal among men. He also conceded that the
elements that went into the making of a religious sense-love, submission,
fear, reverence, gratitude-required at least a moderate development of the
intellectual and moral faculties. Yet he professed to find "some distant
approach to this state of mind" in the love of a dog for his master or of a
monkey for his keeper; and he cited a German professor who held that "a
dog looks on his master as on a god." Thus, as he earlier reduced language
to the grunts and growls of a dog, he now contrived to reduce religion to
the lick of the dog's tongue and the wagging of his tail." (Himmelfarb G.,
"Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution," 1996 reprint, p373)
Even the atheist Bertrand Russell was aware of this reductionist flaw in
evolutionist thinking:
"There is a further consequence of the theory of evolution, which is
independent of the particular mechanism suggested by Darwin. If men and
animals have a common ancestry, and if men developed by such slow
stages that there were creatures which we should not know whether to
classify as human or not, the question arises: at what stage in evolution did
men, or their semi- human ancestors begin to be all equal? Would
Pithecanthropus erectus, if he had been properly educated, have done work
as good as Newton's? Would the Piltdown Man have written Shakespeare's
poetry if there had been anybody to convict him of poaching? A resolute
egalitarian who answers these questions in the affirmative will find himself
forced to regard apes as the equals of human beings. And why stop with
apes? I do not see how he is to resist an argument in favour of Votes for
Oysters. An adherent of evolution should maintain that not only the
doctrine of the equality of all men, but also that of the rights of man, must
be condemned as unbiological since it makes too emphatic a distinction
between men and other animals." (Russell B., "History of Western
Philosophy", 1961, p698)
Of course, if "spiritual" is defined as having some limited artistic and
toolmaking ability, and having some respect for one's dead, then
Neandertal was "spiritual", by definition.
But if "spiritual" is defined as being able to have a relationship with God,
then there is *no* evidence that Neandertal was "spiritual".
I have raised all this before many times but Glenn just ignores it and keeps
making the same old play on the words "spiritual", "human" and "animal".
Glenn unwittingly just adds further confirmation to Johnson's point that
Darwinism thrives on the "ambiguity and confusion" of not "defining terms
precisely and using them consistently":
"Once we understand how...words are used in evolutionary discourse, the
continued ascendancy of neo-Darwinism will be no mystery and we need
no longer be deceived by claims that the theory is supported by
"overwhelming evidence." I should warn at the outset, however, that using
words clearly is not the innocent and peaceful activity most of us may have
thought it to be. There are powerful vested interests in this area which can
thrive only in the midst of ambiguity and confusion. Those who insist on
defining terms precisely and using them consistently may find themselves
regarded with suspicion and hostility, and even accused of being enemies of
science." (Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?" Hillsdale College
Symposium, November 1992. http://id-
www.ucsb.edu/fscf/Library/Johnson/WID.html)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Group
On Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:48:50 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>And even if they left no offspring alive today, the fact that they behaved
>like us, made art, jewelry, musical instruments (see my web page), lived in
>tents, made spears, used fire and left some evidence of religious
>activities means that they were most likely spiritual beings.
[...]
Even if we grant that Neandertals:
a) could do all these things claimed by Glenn (which is controversial); and
b) could do them to the same high quality as the Homo sapiens (Cro-
Magnons) who were living at the same time, ie. ca. 40,000 years ago,
(which is almost universally denied); and
c) could do them in the absence of Homo sapiens (which has not been
demonstrated);
it still would *not* show that Neandertals were "spiritual" in the
*Christian* sense of being able to have a relationship with God:
"Man is distinguished by the presence and use of complex symbolism
or, more specifically, of language. While the making of tools and burial
of the dead point to a fairly sophisticated pattern of behavior, it is
language which makes possible the type of RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD which
would be experienced by a being created in the image of God. On this
basis, one can correlate the beginning of man in the full biblical
sense with the evidence of a great cultural outburst about 30,000 to
40,000." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," 1985, pp484-485)
"...what makes humans different is a quality called "spirit." None of the
rest of Earth's creatures possesses it. By "spirit" the Bible means
AWARENESS OF GOD AND CAPACITY TO FORM A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. Worship
is the key evidence of the spiritual quality of the human race, and the
universality of worship is evidenced in altars, temples, and religious
relics of all kinds. Burial of dead, use of tools, or even painting do
not qualify as evidence of the spirit, for non-spirit beings such as bower
birds, elephants, and chimpanzees engage in such activities to a limited
extent. Bipedal tool- using, large-brained primates (called hominids by
anthropologists) may have roamed the earth as long ago as one million
years, but religious relics and altars date back only 8,000 to 24,000
years." (Ross H., "Creation and Time," 1994, pp140-141. My emphasis.)
Glenn never clearly defines up front what his definition of "spiritual" is, but
plays on the vagueness of words. This is a time-honoured Darwinist
strategy, employed by the master himself:
"Perhaps even more disturbing than any particular faults of argument was
Darwin's tendency to resolve all issues at their lowest level. This was
apparent in his discussion of religion. As he had earlier denied that
language was a unique attribute of man, so he was also constrained to deny
that the religious impulse was unique to man. He conceded that if religion
be taken to mean a "belief in unseen or spiritual agencies," then it would
appear to be almost universal among men. He also conceded that the
elements that went into the making of a religious sense-love, submission,
fear, reverence, gratitude-required at least a moderate development of the
intellectual and moral faculties. Yet he professed to find "some distant
approach to this state of mind" in the love of a dog for his master or of a
monkey for his keeper; and he cited a German professor who held that "a
dog looks on his master as on a god." Thus, as he earlier reduced language
to the grunts and growls of a dog, he now contrived to reduce religion to
the lick of the dog's tongue and the wagging of his tail." (Himmelfarb G.,
"Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution," 1996 reprint, p373)
Even the atheist Bertrand Russell was aware of this reductionist flaw in
evolutionist thinking:
"There is a further consequence of the theory of evolution, which is
independent of the particular mechanism suggested by Darwin. If men and
animals have a common ancestry, and if men developed by such slow
stages that there were creatures which we should not know whether to
classify as human or not, the question arises: at what stage in evolution did
men, or their semi- human ancestors begin to be all equal? Would
Pithecanthropus erectus, if he had been properly educated, have done work
as good as Newton's? Would the Piltdown Man have written Shakespeare's
poetry if there had been anybody to convict him of poaching? A resolute
egalitarian who answers these questions in the affirmative will find himself
forced to regard apes as the equals of human beings. And why stop with
apes? I do not see how he is to resist an argument in favour of Votes for
Oysters. An adherent of evolution should maintain that not only the
doctrine of the equality of all men, but also that of the rights of man, must
be condemned as unbiological since it makes too emphatic a distinction
between men and other animals." (Russell B., "History of Western
Philosophy", 1961, p698)
Of course, if "spiritual" is defined as having some limited artistic and
toolmaking ability, and having some respect for one's dead, then
Neandertal was "spiritual", by definition.
But if "spiritual" is defined as being able to have a relationship with God,
then there is *no* evidence that Neandertal was "spiritual".
I have raised all this before many times but Glenn just ignores it and keeps
making the same old play on the words "spiritual", "human" and "animal".
Glenn unwittingly just adds further confirmation to Johnson's point that
Darwinism thrives on the "ambiguity and confusion" of not "defining terms
precisely and using them consistently":
"Once we understand how...words are used in evolutionary discourse, the
continued ascendancy of neo-Darwinism will be no mystery and we need
no longer be deceived by claims that the theory is supported by
"overwhelming evidence." I should warn at the outset, however, that using
words clearly is not the innocent and peaceful activity most of us may have
thought it to be. There are powerful vested interests in this area which can
thrive only in the midst of ambiguity and confusion. Those who insist on
defining terms precisely and using them consistently may find themselves
regarded with suspicion and hostility, and even accused of being enemies of
science." (Johnson P.E., "What is Darwinism?" Hillsdale College
Symposium, November 1992. http://id-
www.ucsb.edu/fscf/Library/Johnson/WID.html)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--