How do we explain Neanderthals?

[JackRT]

I contest because I know something about modern education. I see as completely compatible the idea that modern science can make amazing tech devices that work, that we can see, observe and test, and that the scientists who get a highly flawed education that excludes true philosophy and theology can make wildly wrong pronouncements and conclusions - consistently - about a long-distant past that cannot be observed.

I am a Christian and a scientist. I had the benefit of a Jesuit education including philosophy and theology. Before retiring I was a scientist, mathematician and educator for forty years. I disagree completely.

Many scientific observations are quite indirect. No one has ever seen a molecule or atom or electron etc etc and yet we know with great confidence the workings of chemistry and nuclear physics. Archaeologists regularly put together the details of ancient societies on the basis of what they left behind. Astronomers can deduce the life cycle of stars and galaxies based on observing the light emitted from them thousands, millions even billions of years ago. Anthropologists do much the same with ancient human remains. None of these sciences can claim to have a complete picture but the power of science lies in the fact that we know that and are willing to modify or discard theories based on new evidence.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I am reading a book called "Sapiens" and it tells the story of humankind. So far most of it has been about neanderthals and the other species of humans who existed at the same time. Eventually, all but one species went extinct and homo sapiens (us) made it to the top of the food chain.

These species, such as neanderthals and homo erectus, existed two million years ago.

What is the Orthodox explanation of this?

Not that this is important, but it's been shown that all non-Africans have traces of Neanderthal DNA (up to 6%). Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were able to have successful relations, and the neanderthals were very smart -buried their dead, crafted tools, etc.

 

[Landon Caeli]

they could also just be ... humans. even amongst people living today there is great variety. just cause "neanderthals" don't look exactly like modern white dudes doesn't mean they're not humans. look at the aborigines.

I agree. Nice name btw.

 

[gzt]

I am a Christian and a scientist. I had the benefit of a Jesuit education including philosophy and theology. Before retiring I was a scientist, mathematician and educator for forty years. I disagree completely.

Many scientific observations are quite indirect. No one has ever seen a molecule or atom or electron etc etc and yet we know with great confidence the workings of chemistry and nuclear physics. Archaeologists regularly put together the details of ancient societies on the basis of what they left behind. Astronomers can deduce the life cycle of stars and galaxies based on observing the light emitted from them thousands, millions even billions of years ago. Anthropologists do much the same with ancient human remains. None of these sciences can claim to have a complete picture but the power of science lies in the fact that we know that and are willing to modify or discard theories based on new evidence.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

Defintely. And here's the thing: Christian that work from a position that respects the scientific evidence suggesting the earth is billions of years old, life is billions of years old, complex life is hundreds of millions of years old, humans emerged in the last couple million years, can have a satisfying account of that which respects the biblical text and the Christian tradition of interpretation - not everything fits neatly but we're willing to work. A position that rejects that rejects that scientific evidence might broadly fit into the Christian tradition of interpretation but it does do violence to the text (it kind of misses the point) and it seems to imply that anything approaching knowledge of the physical world is impossible. That's not terribly satisfying since in some ways it fails both objectives.

 

[rusmeister]

I am a Christian and a scientist. I had the benefit of a Jesuit education including philosophy and theology. Before retiring I was a scientist, mathematician and educator for forty years. I disagree completely.

Many scientific observations are quite indirect. No one has ever seen a molecule or atom or electron etc etc and yet we know with great confidence the workings of chemistry and nuclear physics. Archaeologists regularly put together the details of ancient societies on the basis of what they left behind. Astronomers can deduce the life cycle of stars and galaxies based on observing the light emitted from them thousands, millions even billions of years ago. Anthropologists do much the same with ancient human remains. None of these sciences can claim to have a complete picture but the power of science lies in the fact that we know that and are willing to modify or discard theories based on new evidence.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

You are free to disagree.
I do not deny that, to a limited degree, scientists can be reasonably certain of some things that cannot be seen. I agree that there are many things that can be said that have a reasonable probability of being really true - though the more they rely on assumption and calculation, the more likely they are to err through discounting unknown variables. Scientists are fallible humans who often forget that theories are theoretical, and they come to see them as certain truth, dogma, unquestionable fact that all must accept, even if it teaches that death entered the world long before there was any man to sin and cause it to enter. They wind up denying Orthodox dogma in the name of believing in secular dogma, a thing we rightly call scientism.

If you know the history of public education, beyond a few sketchy details, I might concede some understanding of education beyond that conferred by personal experience as a teacher. A great many have the latter, in all my experience very few are familiar with the former. And that history matters very much to any claimed understanding of education.

 

[jckstraw72]

I agree. Nice name btw.

my current FB avatar:

 

[JackRT]

Scientists are fallible humans who often forget that theories are theoretical, and they come to see them as certain truth, dogma, unquestionable fact that all must accept,

Some scientists indeed might have that attitude but it runs counter to the entire philosophy of science.

 

[rusmeister]

Some scientists indeed might have that attitude but it runs counter to the entire philosophy of science.

Indeed it does. I believe in legitimate science. I am with GK Chesterton, (and CS Lewis) though, against the dogmatic proclamation of human evolution, and my grounds for rejecting it are philosophical more than scientific, though the problem of assumptions and calculations and variables unknown to the calculators remains a scientific problem that cannot be resolved.

I believe death entered the world by sin, and was not in the unFallen Creation which already contained man. The evolutionist does not believe that death entered the world by sin, but presents a narrative whereby death reigned in the cosmos even when there were no humans to commit any sins.

I find synthesis of the modern ideas ultimately incompatible with Church Tradition, and so choose Holy Tradition over the scientists, who are, like most people in our time, largely unconscious of their own philosophical dogmas and that they are dogmas.

 

[Petros2015]

Not sure what the Orthodox thought is, but there could have been a lineage of both neanderthals and 'humans' prior to Adam and Eve. Consider if what made those two special was having God breathe the soul into them, not just being the 'first' homosapien'ish thing. Adam and Eve would be Human+, if you like, a step up in spiritual (rather than physical) evolution from whatever else was contemporary. After and outside the Garden there may have been intermingling between the lines of homosapien and Human+, but I would guess that Human+ is dominant. And then there's that Flood story. Suddenly we are back to just 1 lineage again, Noah and family are definitely from the line of Adam. This makes more sense to me.

After Cain murders his brother and is outcast, he is worried that "whoever finds me will kill me."

??

In the Human+ line I think there's only him, Adam and Eve left at the point of the murder. Is he worried about baby brothers coming for vengence that aren't even born yet? I might be wrong. But this makes more sense if there were other lines of humans that weren't created 'in the image of God' or neanderthal hold outs or similar, and he knew about and was afraid of them. He goes on to build a city somehow. Not a tent or a shack. A city.

With who?

He takes a wife. I don't think her name or her lineage are given at all. That's odd...

I don't think the first few chapters of Genesis were quite as lonely as they are sometimes depicted. Adam and Eve may have had plenty of company once they were outside the Garden.

Just some thoughts.

 

[YCGP]

At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

What do you believe as a scientist, and what do you believe as a Christian? How do we explain the six species of humans who lived two million years ago?

 

[JackRT]

What do you believe as a scientist, and what do you believe as a Christian? How do we explain the six species of humans who lived two million years ago?

To begin with I believe that we as Christians must recognize that much of the Bible is not literal history.

 

[ArmyMatt]

they could also just be ... humans. even amongst people living today there is great variety. just cause "neanderthals" don't look exactly like modern white dudes doesn't mean they're not humans. look at the aborigines.

that's actually a good point come to think of it. although I cannot think of any reason God would mass extinct a race of humans. and they would not be those who died in the Flood, since as was pointed out, they ritualistically buried their dead (and God says that those that died in the Flood were all flesh).

so I dunno

 

[ArmyMatt]

To begin with I believe that we as Christians must recognize that much of the Bible is not literal history.

as Orthodox Christians, we don't always have that luxury.

 

[gzt]

as Orthodox Christians, we don't always have that luxury.

Yes we do! At least in the case. According to some schools of thought.

 

[truefiction1]

I suspect that it's all true: God, the Bible, Adam and Eve, and the theory of evolution. I may not know exactly how this may be possible. How is a fool such as me to know. God knows, for sure, and I'll leave it up to Him to reveal to me all things when I'm grown up enough to understand.

 

[gzt]

As Han says: "It's true... all of it."

 

[rusmeister]

Yes we do! At least in the case. According to some schools of thought.

Well, Matt DID say "don't always".

Let me ask instead how you understand "Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men". Do you understand that literally, or do you explain it away somehow as a symbol? How did the Church fathers understand that passage? If you do accept it as literally true, then how is it that death entered the world by sin, AND entered the world before there was any man to sin?

I see too many self-contradictions (as opposed to paradox), in either trying to construct a chronological narrative, or in trying to escape chronology in an evolutionary narrative (which is another way of saying "story", which is another way of saying "history").

(Note to TF: If one can accept being fool enough to accept the idea of the synthesis of human evolution and the narrative of Creation, surely one could accept being fool enough to admit that the modern science might really have this one really wrong, to see the huge "IF" in all theories.)

 

[jckstraw72]

Orthodox Christians have that luxury, sure. they don't have the luxury to believe that while still claiming they're being faithful to what the Orthodox Church teaches.

 

[jckstraw72]

that's actually a good point come to think of it. although I cannot think of any reason God would mass extinct a race of humans. and they would not be those who died in the Flood, since as was pointed out, they ritualistically buried their dead (and God says that those that died in the Flood were all flesh).

so I dunno

i don't get your point about the flood

 

[Petros2015]

If you do accept it as literally true, then how is it that death entered the world by sin, AND entered the world before there was any man to sin?

Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's Cat? When you start looking at quantum mechanics, the universe is constructed in some VERY strange ways. Things can be in a kind of 'fuzzy' state (cat is both alive in the box, and dead in the box). Once the state is resolved and known then 'well, it was always that way'. Retroactively. If you wait 2 days to resolve and open the box and the cat is alive, it is 2 days hungry. If it's dead, it is 2 days dead.

The Garden may have been something like that. The universe was in a Quantum state, the outcome not decided. Is there death or not? Then suddenly it is resolved. The impact is then Retroactive, across all of Creation. 'It was always that way'. It's strange, but the way things are built it seems to me like that is the kind of thing that actually COULD happen.