As Evolutionists, do you consider yourselves, or future man more evolved than Jesus?

[Dannager]

Put it another way:

Were Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man any less adapted to their particular environment than we are? The reason they died out is because in the end they either changed into something else, or didn't adapt as a species quickly enough to their environment when it changed.

The problem is that you're tacking a philosophy (the idea of "progress") onto a scientific process that has no inherent purpose. Human beings, of course, do tend to look down their noses at people from the past and think they're "better" than they were then. But that's a subjective, not a scientific, judgement, certainly as regards evolution.

Pure science doesn't make those kind of judgements: it merely reports on what it sees happening. Science has no teleology; it's descriptive not prescriptive.

A better explanation than I could have mustered.

 

[steen]

So Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are on equal footing with our mental prowess? We haven't progressed since their time?

[/quote]Why would that be necessary? They were adapted to their unique environment. I have the feeling that your view of Evolution doesn't conform to what the science is?

 

[stumpjumper]

The title asks the question. No one disputes Jesus living some 2000 years ago. As Evolutionists, do you believe that man of our time is more evolved than Jesus, a man of his time? Do you believe that future man will be more evolved than Jesus?

Karl Rahner's Christology within an evolutionary view of the world in abstract: http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/Rahner610.htm

I have the book

 

[gluadys]

So Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal are on equal footing with our mental prowess? We haven't progressed since their time?

The original question was about Jesus and presumably his first century CE contemporaries. We haven't had time to progress in mental prowess since then, no matter how much new knowledge we have accumulated.

The same probably applies to Cro-Magnon since Cro-Magnon is an early H. sapiens culture, not a biological ancestor of our species. AFAIK, there is no anatomical difference between Cro-Magnon and you, including brain siaze.

Neanderthal may have had a different mental capacity--I hesitate to say lesser as I just don't know--but that is irrelevant, since they were not our ancestors either, so any progess in mental prowess in Neanderthals would be independent of that occurring in our lineage.

 

[horuhe00]

This sounds like the question asked to Jesus about giving to Ceaser what is Ceaser's.

More evolved as in having changed from how man was 2000 years ago, YES.

Better evolved than man 2000 years ago, not necesarily.

Better than Jesus, NEVER.

 

[Poke]

Yes, Evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus. 2000 years more evolved.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, Evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus. 2000 years more evolved.

Again, considering most creationists subscribe to the sort of superevolution that leads from a single "kind" ancestor to the diversity of dogs, cats, horses, etc. that we see today in less than 4000 years, I have to wonder if maybe it is the creationists, not the "evolutionists", who believe we are "more evolved" than Jesus. I would love to see Poke address this issue rather than just poking at strawmen all the time and putting words into the mouths of scientists. Come on, Poke, let's see you support yourself for once!

 

[shernren]

Evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus. 2000 years more evolved.

Which of these evolutionists think they're more evolved than Jesus?

So nope, I don't consider myself more evolved than Jesus, not that I know what you mean by "more evolved" in the first place.

More evolved and less evolved doesn't make much sense.

Firstly the time is very small and secondly "more evolved" doesn't mean better or superior.

Even if man does evolve further, nothing will change the fact that we are sinners who have fallen far short of God's glory. Personally, I think that is more important.

I think that would be a better question to ask of those creationists who believe in the sort of hyper-evolution from the original "kinds" that lead to our modern diversity, don't you? Surely their evidence must indicate we are more highly evolved than Jesus.

(emphasis added)

It occurs to me that the reason for the confusion is the mistaken view that evolution is about "progress." Human beings are not "better" now than they were in Jesus' time;

I'm pretty sure no one holds that viewpoint, Proselyte, especially since evolution doesn't pass judgment on what is "more evolved" or "more advanced" as long as the population remains extant.

...

we cannot say that we are better adapted to our environment than Jesus was adapted to his.

But what is "favorable"? "Favorable" is what is best adapted to the environment of the present moment. So we can be better adapted to today's environment, while Jesus and his contemproraries were better adapted to theirs. And our great-grandchildren will be better adapted to theirs.

But the differences are just differences. They don't imply a progress, only adaptations to changing environments.

...

The original question was about Jesus and presumably his first century CE contemporaries. We haven't had time to progress in mental prowess since then, no matter how much new knowledge we have accumulated.

If you want to misrepresent our position, won't you at least quote-mine something we actually said, so that we can bask in receiving the same derogatory treatment that leading evolutionary scientists do?

Better than Jesus, NEVER.

John 14:12
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Of course, I don't mean evolution by this verse, but I don't think Jesus will ever take offense to us ever doing anything "better" than He could. Obviously He is not referring to His work of redemption and salvation, which is His alone, but I believe that He refers to the work of spreading His Gospel throughout the world and bringing glory to the Father. By leaving behind a body of many people in the place of a single physical body, He effectively made it possible for the Gospel to reach into the whole world to reclaim for Himself a people from every nation, tongue, and tribe. In that sense we are "better" than Jesus, and it is a measurement taken straight from Jesus' words themselves.

 

[chaoschristian]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shernren again.

*grouse, grouse, grouse

 

[chesslord243]

what's a "YEC" ?

 

[chaoschristian]

what's a "YEC" ?

Young
Earth
Creationist

There is a thread stickied on the top of the forum that provides definitions and a spectrum of beliefs for most if not all of the positions on origins theology. Check it out.

 

[xpiotosaves]

Though I am a YEC i would have to say yes. In little ways we are different. One way is that some people today are no longer born with wisdom teeth.

 

[Redneck Crow]

In the way Cro-magnon or Neanderthal is looked back on as inferior in terms of mental prowess, if that is the case, will someday a new group of the human species look back on us in a relative primitive light? In reference to the original question then, will this "future man" look back on Jesus and his contemporaries as primitive and perhaps less evolved even mentally?

Christ "took on flesh." He took on the human flesh common to area He was born into. Really, the flesh He took on makes no difference in who He was and is.

The biggest change from people in the time when Christ took on flesh is that the knowledge base that we build on incorporates the ideas, findings, and research of many more people and there have been advances in means of collection, distribution, and storage of knowledge.