Group
On Fri, 04 Sep 1998 20:54:24 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>>>SJ>But Donald Johanson whom Glenn quotes below to support his
>>>>case, admits that anthropologists have no clear set of physical criteria
>>>>as to what is "human":
GM>But Stephen Christianity DOES have a clear definition. Those who
>engage in religion must be human.
"Religion" is too vague a word. Darwin thought his *dog* had religious
feelings:
"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." (Darwin C., "The Descent of Man",
1871, II, p68). 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, pp373-374)
Glenn cites *no* references supporting his claim that it is a "clear
definition" of "Christianity" that "Those who engage in religion must be
human." By contrast, I have cited references from Christian theologians
and apologists that the Christian definition of "human" is the capacity to
have a personal relationship with God:
"Let it be said for the moment, however, that whatever it is that sets man
apart from the rest of the creation, he alone is capable of having a
conscious PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CREATOR and of
responding to him." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1985, p472. My emphasis)
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only adham, as
being made in His image. The point is emphasized by repetition. As
humanity's story unfolds through subsequent chapters, we discover that
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.
Thus, the secular archaeological date for the first spirit creatures is
incomplete agreement with the biblical date. Some differences, however,
between the Bible and secular anthropology remain. By the biblical
definition, these hominids may have been intelligent mammals, but they
were not humans." (Ross H., "Creation and Time," 1994, pp140-141. My
emphasis).
GM>I have cited the Golan Venus at 300 kyr
This at best would only be evidence of art, which is not a criterion for
having a relationship with God. But a recent microscoping study concluded
that the marks around the `neck' were probably made by a stone tool, but
was indistinguishable from mere scratching:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCOVER Vol. 19 No. 7 (July 1998)
Breakthroughs
Art or Lump?
This tiny lump of volcanic rock, in which some claim to perceive a female
figure, could be the oldest work of art in the world, or it could be a tiny
lump of volcanic rock. Archeologist April Nowell of the University of
Pennsylvania recently tried to settle the debate about the 233,000-year-old
stone, found in Israel 15 years ago. "It's really not that impressive," admits
Nowell. "When I first saw it in a journal, I was pretty sure it was just a
rock." To find out if the grooves on the rock were created by natural
processes, she compared the "figurine" to other volcanic rocks from the
area under an electron microscope. The grooves on volcanic rocks are
usually parallel, Nowell observed, and only on one side of the rock. None
of them encircled the rock like the groove that makes the neck of the
figurine. Grooves in volcanic rock also have gaps and microfoldings, signs
of rapid heating and cooling. The neck groove had none. The microscope
also revealed tiny striations, like those made by a stone tool. Nowell
concludes that the rock was modified by someone, most likely Homo
erectus, wielding a stone tool. But it's difficult to say if the carver was
consciously forming a human shape or merely scratching at the rock. If the
rock is indeed a form of artistic expression, then archeologists have to fill a
gap of nearly 200,000 apparently artless years that follow. "It's
idiosyncratic, it's interesting, it's anomalous," says Nowell. "And it's
definitely going to make us do a lot more research." ("Art or Lump?"
Discover, Vol. 19, No. 7, July 1998, p18.
http://www.discover.com/july_issue/breakartlump.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GM>and the apparent religious altar at Bilzingsleben 400 kyr
I aware of stone hearths at Bilzingsleben but not of an "apparent religious
altar" there. Perhaps Glenn can provide quotes and references?
GM>as evidence that mankind has been theologically human for that
>period of time. Why is religion not an indication of humanity?
See above. As it is left undefined, "religion", is too vague a term. But even
if evidence was eventually found of the *beginnings* of "religion" among
hominids, it would only be evidence of the *beginnings* of "humanity". It
would not be evidence of full humanity and the completed image of God.
Only Homo sapiens is *fully* human and bears the *completed* image of
God.
>SJ>But Glenn's *whole argument* is, based on an attempt to "fit the
>>scriptural account with the scientific observations". Since when are
>>"scientific observations"concerned with "a theological perspective" and
>>not with "outer looks"?
GM>So we should believe whatever that goes against observational data?
>Good science Stephen.
This is a caricature of what I said. I definitely do *not* think that we
should believe whatever that goes against observational data." But *all*
"observational data" about the distant past is *interpreted*. And it is
almost always interpreted by scientists who hold a Naturalistic worldview,
and therefore not with "a theological perspective."
>>GM>2 Cor 10:7...John 7:24..
>SJ>These are all to do with *Homo sapiens* and so are irrelevant to
>>hominids like Bodo man, who may not even be ancestral to Homo
>>sapiens.
GM>So you are saying that humanity rests in the shape of our bones. Do
>you know that the shape of the bones of chinese and Africans are slightly
>different from those of Europeans?
What I was pointing out is that Glenn can't quote verses from Homo
sapeins to other Homo sapiens on how we are to treat other Homo sapiens.
Verse about not judging by outward appearance obviously must be
interpreted withing the category Homo sapiens.
But clearly at one level "humanity" does "rest in the shape of our bones."
Palaeontologists define taxonomic categories based on "the shape
of...bones." Some hominids (eg. Australopithecines) are ruled out of the
genus Homo (the lowest level definition of humanity) based on the "shape
of" their "bones."
But as I have said many times before, *full* humanity rests in our capacity
to have a relationship with God.
>SJ>Glenn has presented *no* evidence whatsover that Bodo Man had a
>>"spiritual nature" in the sense of being able to have a personal relationship
>>with God. Bodo man might have had the *beginnings* of a "spiritual
>>nature" and therefore *may* have represented the *beginnings* of
>>humanity, but he was not *fully* "human":
GM>One can't have a 'beginning of a 'spiritual nature'' one either has it or
>he doesn't.
Disagree. If "spiritual nature" is related to the acquisition of a fully
symbolic language (so that man can have a rfelationship with God), and
hominids showed the beginnings of language in, for example, the
beginnings of speech centres in their brains, etc., then that would be the
beginnings of a "spiritual nature."
>SJ>Thanks to Glenn for `enlightening' me, but I *do* "know" that "scalping"
>>*can be* (but is not always or even mostly) "a religious/spiritual act"
>>among *Homo sapiens*. But even among Homo sapiens it can just be a
>>trophy of war to prove that one has killed one of the enemy:
>
>>"The importance of scalping varied. For Southeastern Indians it was
>>necessary to take scalps to become a warrior and to placate the spirits of
>>the dead.
GM>This is ridiculous Stephen. The 'spirits of the deat' precisely prove my
>point that scalping is a spiritual/religious idea.
Glenn just cuts off the rest of my quote, without elipses. And this from
someone who destructively criticises creationists for falling short of the
highest standards!
My quote continued:
"...Most Northeastern Indians valued captives more than scalps.
Among Plains Indians SCALPS WERE TAKEN FOR WAR HONOURS,
although such practices as touching a live enemy accrued more honour to a
warrior. Scalps were usually taken from dead enemies, although some
Plains Indians preferred a live victim. The operation was not necessarily
fatal, and some victims were released alive. The scalp was sometimes
offered as a ritual sacrifice or preserved and carried by women in a
triumphal scalp dance, later to be retained as a pendant by the warrior, used
as tribal medicine, or discarded." ("Scalping," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Benton, Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. viii, p942. My emphasis.)
So Glenn's really needs to read my arguments more carefully. Otherwise
what is "ridiculous" is Glenn's misunderstanding of what I said. I said that
"scalping...can be...a religious/spiritual act" "but is not always or even
mostly." The above quote lists other motives for scalping including "war
honours", "tribal medicine" and wearing as personal decoration.
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 Fri, 04 Sep 1998 20:54:24 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>>>SJ>But Donald Johanson whom Glenn quotes below to support his
>>>>case, admits that anthropologists have no clear set of physical criteria
>>>>as to what is "human":
GM>But Stephen Christianity DOES have a clear definition. Those who
>engage in religion must be human.
"Religion" is too vague a word. Darwin thought his *dog* had religious
feelings:
"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." (Darwin C., "The Descent of Man",
1871, II, p68). 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, pp373-374)
Glenn cites *no* references supporting his claim that it is a "clear
definition" of "Christianity" that "Those who engage in religion must be
human." By contrast, I have cited references from Christian theologians
and apologists that the Christian definition of "human" is the capacity to
have a personal relationship with God:
"Let it be said for the moment, however, that whatever it is that sets man
apart from the rest of the creation, he alone is capable of having a
conscious PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CREATOR and of
responding to him." (Erickson M.J., "Christian Theology," Baker: Grand
Rapids MI, 1985, p472. My emphasis)
"In Genesis 1, God speaks of adham (male and female), and only adham, as
being made in His image. The point is emphasized by repetition. As
humanity's story unfolds through subsequent chapters, we discover that
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.
Thus, the secular archaeological date for the first spirit creatures is
incomplete agreement with the biblical date. Some differences, however,
between the Bible and secular anthropology remain. By the biblical
definition, these hominids may have been intelligent mammals, but they
were not humans." (Ross H., "Creation and Time," 1994, pp140-141. My
emphasis).
GM>I have cited the Golan Venus at 300 kyr
This at best would only be evidence of art, which is not a criterion for
having a relationship with God. But a recent microscoping study concluded
that the marks around the `neck' were probably made by a stone tool, but
was indistinguishable from mere scratching:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCOVER Vol. 19 No. 7 (July 1998)
Breakthroughs
Art or Lump?
This tiny lump of volcanic rock, in which some claim to perceive a female
figure, could be the oldest work of art in the world, or it could be a tiny
lump of volcanic rock. Archeologist April Nowell of the University of
Pennsylvania recently tried to settle the debate about the 233,000-year-old
stone, found in Israel 15 years ago. "It's really not that impressive," admits
Nowell. "When I first saw it in a journal, I was pretty sure it was just a
rock." To find out if the grooves on the rock were created by natural
processes, she compared the "figurine" to other volcanic rocks from the
area under an electron microscope. The grooves on volcanic rocks are
usually parallel, Nowell observed, and only on one side of the rock. None
of them encircled the rock like the groove that makes the neck of the
figurine. Grooves in volcanic rock also have gaps and microfoldings, signs
of rapid heating and cooling. The neck groove had none. The microscope
also revealed tiny striations, like those made by a stone tool. Nowell
concludes that the rock was modified by someone, most likely Homo
erectus, wielding a stone tool. But it's difficult to say if the carver was
consciously forming a human shape or merely scratching at the rock. If the
rock is indeed a form of artistic expression, then archeologists have to fill a
gap of nearly 200,000 apparently artless years that follow. "It's
idiosyncratic, it's interesting, it's anomalous," says Nowell. "And it's
definitely going to make us do a lot more research." ("Art or Lump?"
Discover, Vol. 19, No. 7, July 1998, p18.
http://www.discover.com/july_issue/breakartlump.html)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GM>and the apparent religious altar at Bilzingsleben 400 kyr
I aware of stone hearths at Bilzingsleben but not of an "apparent religious
altar" there. Perhaps Glenn can provide quotes and references?
GM>as evidence that mankind has been theologically human for that
>period of time. Why is religion not an indication of humanity?
See above. As it is left undefined, "religion", is too vague a term. But even
if evidence was eventually found of the *beginnings* of "religion" among
hominids, it would only be evidence of the *beginnings* of "humanity". It
would not be evidence of full humanity and the completed image of God.
Only Homo sapiens is *fully* human and bears the *completed* image of
God.
>SJ>But Glenn's *whole argument* is, based on an attempt to "fit the
>>scriptural account with the scientific observations". Since when are
>>"scientific observations"concerned with "a theological perspective" and
>>not with "outer looks"?
GM>So we should believe whatever that goes against observational data?
>Good science Stephen.
This is a caricature of what I said. I definitely do *not* think that we
should believe whatever that goes against observational data." But *all*
"observational data" about the distant past is *interpreted*. And it is
almost always interpreted by scientists who hold a Naturalistic worldview,
and therefore not with "a theological perspective."
>>GM>2 Cor 10:7...John 7:24..
>SJ>These are all to do with *Homo sapiens* and so are irrelevant to
>>hominids like Bodo man, who may not even be ancestral to Homo
>>sapiens.
GM>So you are saying that humanity rests in the shape of our bones. Do
>you know that the shape of the bones of chinese and Africans are slightly
>different from those of Europeans?
What I was pointing out is that Glenn can't quote verses from Homo
sapeins to other Homo sapiens on how we are to treat other Homo sapiens.
Verse about not judging by outward appearance obviously must be
interpreted withing the category Homo sapiens.
But clearly at one level "humanity" does "rest in the shape of our bones."
Palaeontologists define taxonomic categories based on "the shape
of...bones." Some hominids (eg. Australopithecines) are ruled out of the
genus Homo (the lowest level definition of humanity) based on the "shape
of" their "bones."
But as I have said many times before, *full* humanity rests in our capacity
to have a relationship with God.
>SJ>Glenn has presented *no* evidence whatsover that Bodo Man had a
>>"spiritual nature" in the sense of being able to have a personal relationship
>>with God. Bodo man might have had the *beginnings* of a "spiritual
>>nature" and therefore *may* have represented the *beginnings* of
>>humanity, but he was not *fully* "human":
GM>One can't have a 'beginning of a 'spiritual nature'' one either has it or
>he doesn't.
Disagree. If "spiritual nature" is related to the acquisition of a fully
symbolic language (so that man can have a rfelationship with God), and
hominids showed the beginnings of language in, for example, the
beginnings of speech centres in their brains, etc., then that would be the
beginnings of a "spiritual nature."
>SJ>Thanks to Glenn for `enlightening' me, but I *do* "know" that "scalping"
>>*can be* (but is not always or even mostly) "a religious/spiritual act"
>>among *Homo sapiens*. But even among Homo sapiens it can just be a
>>trophy of war to prove that one has killed one of the enemy:
>
>>"The importance of scalping varied. For Southeastern Indians it was
>>necessary to take scalps to become a warrior and to placate the spirits of
>>the dead.
GM>This is ridiculous Stephen. The 'spirits of the deat' precisely prove my
>point that scalping is a spiritual/religious idea.
Glenn just cuts off the rest of my quote, without elipses. And this from
someone who destructively criticises creationists for falling short of the
highest standards!
My quote continued:
"...Most Northeastern Indians valued captives more than scalps.
Among Plains Indians SCALPS WERE TAKEN FOR WAR HONOURS,
although such practices as touching a live enemy accrued more honour to a
warrior. Scalps were usually taken from dead enemies, although some
Plains Indians preferred a live victim. The operation was not necessarily
fatal, and some victims were released alive. The scalp was sometimes
offered as a ritual sacrifice or preserved and carried by women in a
triumphal scalp dance, later to be retained as a pendant by the warrior, used
as tribal medicine, or discarded." ("Scalping," Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Benton, Chicago, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. viii, p942. My emphasis.)
So Glenn's really needs to read my arguments more carefully. Otherwise
what is "ridiculous" is Glenn's misunderstanding of what I said. I said that
"scalping...can be...a religious/spiritual act" "but is not always or even
mostly." The above quote lists other motives for scalping including "war
honours", "tribal medicine" and wearing as personal decoration.
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=_=_=_--