Sin and Pre-Adamite Humanity

[relspace]

With all due respect, I still find that I can't agree with you here. Our "impressions" of other people are subjective, and determined in part by socio-cultural factors. When white people arrived in Australia and the New World, their impression of the indigenous peoples were that they were less evolved. Modern genetics has now shown this impression absolutely wrong.

When we meet people with severe intellectual disability, or people with Down's syndrome, our deepest instinct is to classify them as "less human". But in God's eyes this is false.

So yes, if we met Adam's biological father, we may well feel that he is a savage beast, not a human. But this man may be as much in the image of God as we are.

Point taken. Impression are subjective and can be greatly influenced by cultural prejudice. And thus science does have an important role. But I notice that in your counter examples you use the words, "less human" not "animal". My point is that if the cultural prejudice can be trained out of the observer, the impressions does contain a great deal of accurate information that is possible yet more difficult to measure.

Clearly I am saying that Adam's father is human in potentiality if not in actuality. After meeting him, I have no doubt that depending on how we treat him, he would quickly learn to imitate us and learn much of those same things which make us human ourselves.

Whatever the case, we're still dealing with a great deal more advancement than chimps and gorillas. That's all I was saying.

That is true. For by comparison, although chimps and gorillas can learn many human behaviors from us there are some rather severe limitations.

Personally, I would consider this a miraculous act. In other words, we couldn't explain it naturalistically.

Yes but it can be explained away by the stubborn and unreceptive mind as delusional. I also consider it miraculous, but then I consider the miraculous to be quite common place and not something which cannot be explained away.

For instance, how do you account for the spread of "humanity" to other peoples living on earth at the time? I presume you believe that Adam lived in Mesopotamia. When and how did humanity spread to the Americas, or the Pacific Islands, or Australia? Surely there must have been a considerable lag in some areas, where "people" remained "animals" for hundreds of years after Adam was adopted by God.

Well it is now known (from the study of genetics) that all of humanity originated fairly recently (on a genetic time scale) from migrations of a rather small population originating in Africa. Current studies show that this occured in three successive migrations at 1.5 million years, 700,000 years and 100,000 years ago. Certainly 100,000 years ago is a much farther time in the past than would be expected from reading the Bible. But I would not rule these out as possible times when true humanity spread throughout the world.

However since I do not believe that the change from animal to man was a genetic one but a "cultural" one this could be something which happened much more recently. In this case, since a genetic impact is not required, it would not be limited by the speed of conquest but only by the speed of communication.

I suspect that what bothers you the most is the sharp division implied between animal and man. But I do not think that it is such a sharp division myself, but perhaps not in the way you might think. The lack of sharp division between animal and man in my mind is not in the slow evolution of capabilities in the human species but in the failure of human kind to complete the transformation. We are stuck in a halfway state that is far from uniform. Some behave more animalistic, governed only by instinct and biological need while others are govened completely by abstract principles in almost complete denial of their biological drives.

If you are focused on the view of God on the issue, then I think for God it has always been a matter of seeing our potentiality rather than our actuality and that when He adopted Adam and Eve, He also by extension adopted the whole species. And as for judgement, in contrast to the legalistic system of rules by which we judge ourselves, God is quite capable of judging us quite differently according to our circumstances (what we have been given).

What about the spread of sin worldwide? When and how did this occur?

The spread of sin is identical to the spread of humanity.

Can I please ask: roughly when do you think Adam and Eve lived?

I, frankly, do not know. I am not commited to the 6000 year timetable implied by scripture.

 

[jereth]

Yes but it can be explained away by the stubborn and unreceptive mind as delusional. I also consider it miraculous, but then I consider the miraculous to be quite common place and not something which cannot be explained away.

I guess I asked that question because it seems that the premise of TEism is that we can explain the origins of the world, life and humanity in terms of scientifically examinable naturalistic processes. If a miraculous intervention was necessary to lift humanity from animal ignorance to moral and spiritual awareness, then we have taken one step in the direction of OECism and away from "purist" TEism. (Not that I think that is a bad thing, mind you.)

Well it is now known (from the study of genetics) that all of humanity originated fairly recently (on a genetic time scale) from migrations of a rather small population originating in Africa. Current studies show that this occured in three successive migrations at 1.5 million years, 700,000 years and 100,000 years ago. Certainly 100,000 years ago is a much farther time in the past than would be expected from reading the Bible. But I would not rule these out as possible times when true humanity spread throughout the world.

An aside: If we assume the single origin hypothesis (as opposed to the multiregional hypothesis), then only the final (100 TYA) migration is significant, yes?

I, frankly, do not know. I am not commited to the 6000 year timetable implied by scripture.

Of course. But surely you must have some vague opinion about when God stepped in and "adopted" humanity (as you put it). Did this occur very early in our history, around 100 TYA, or in the neolithic age (i.e. < 10 TYA) when humanity was already well spread around the globe? So far, what you have written implies the latter.

Clearly I am saying that Adam's father is human in potentiality if not in actuality. After meeting him, I have no doubt that depending on how we treat him, he would quickly learn to imitate us and learn much of those same things which make us human ourselves.
...
However since I do not believe that the change from animal to man was a genetic one but a "cultural" one this could be something which happened much more recently. In this case, since a genetic impact is not required, it would not be limited by the speed of conquest but only by the speed of communication.

If you are focused on the view of God on the issue, then I think for God it has always been a matter of seeing our potentiality rather than our actuality and that when He adopted Adam and Eve, He also by extension adopted the whole species.

I think I am coming to understand your position better. I'll try and summarise it, please correct anything that is inaccurate.
- Modern anatomical and physiological "humanity" has been in existence for a good 100,000 years. However, for much of this time humans were culturally and spiritually primitive.
- Some time more recently (perhaps ~10 TYA) God stepped in and adopted Adam and Eve, teaching them abstract thought and higher moral values. Adam and Eve rapidly passed these new qualities to their children and others who were living on earth contemporary to them.
- At the same time as God adopted humanity, humanity refused to go the full distance to spiritual maturity to which God was leading them, and hence we have a sinful condition.

But there are still some problems my mind can't get over.
- Do anthropological studies and evolutionary psychology really support such a view? I've always heard it taught that abstract thinking, moral values, meaningful human relationships etc. developed gradually rather than appearing suddenly
- Is it really possible to drive such a wedge between biology and psychology? You say that pre-Adamite humanity had the potential to achieve full humanity but until God stepped in this could never happen. But if his brain was every bit as capable as ours, how can he not have spontaneously started to think in abstract ways and developed moral value systems etc. ?
- Sure, communication occurs much faster than genetic change. But isn't it fairly certain that Australia, the east indies and the Americas have been totally isolated in the last 10,000 years? If God only made contact with one man and one woman living in Mesopotamia, and this occurred within the last 10,000 or so years, the Australian indigenous peoples cannot have shared in the benefits.

I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks for the ongoing discussion.

 

[relspace]

Of course. But surely you must have some vague opinion about when God stepped in and "adopted" humanity (as you put it). Did this occur very early in our history, around 100 TYA, or in the neolithic age (i.e. < 10 TYA) when humanity was already well spread around the globe? So far, what you have written implies the latter.

I think I was clear that I lean more towards approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years.

I think I am coming to understand your position better. I'll try and summarise it, please correct anything that is inaccurate.
- Modern anatomical and physiological "humanity" has been in existence for a good 100,000 years. However, for much of this time humans were culturally and spiritually primitive.
- Some time more recently (perhaps ~10 TYA) God stepped in and adopted Adam and Eve, teaching them abstract thought and higher moral values. Adam and Eve rapidly passed these new qualities to their children and others who were living on earth contemporary to them.
- At the same time as God adopted humanity, humanity refused to go the full distance to spiritual maturity to which God was leading them, and hence we have a sinful condition.

You got it.

But there are still some problems my mind can't get over.
- Do anthropological studies and evolutionary psychology really support such a view?

I am not sure that it can. God and the spirituality of man is beyond the reach of science, because they are not objectively observable. And I think I already mentioned before that since this occured before the written record then there can be no solid evidence for it, for abstract thought would leave no traces in the absense of such a written record.

I've always heard it taught that abstract thinking, moral values, meaningful human relationships etc. developed gradually rather than appearing suddenly

Well I have two responses to that:
1) This is pure specution based on no solid evidence whatsoever. But the truth is that human civilization started rather suddenly 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. Besides I am not sure there is any gradual way to get to abstract thought. Perhaps you would like to explain the process.
2) Even after Adam and Eve the development would have been gradual, not only in its spread to the rest of the species but also in the increasing sophistication of abstract thought. The impact on the rest of the human species would have taken time and need not have been entirely uniform in the sense that some aspects of what Adam and Eve learned may have spread faster than others. Furthermore what Adam and Eve received were the seeds of mental life, and the human mind like all living things grows, learns, and "evolves" (only on a considerably faster time scale). Furthermore its impact on the living practices would be another gradual development.

Nevertheless compared to the biological development of the species over a couple million years the development I am talking about in only a few thousand years or less was relatively rapid indeed.

- Is it really possible to drive such a wedge between biology and psychology?

Well it all depends on what you define as psychology. Modern psychology has indeed become more and more obsessed with chemical explanations and chemical solutions. But I think this has devolved psychology away from an understanding of the human mind to a study of mind altering drugs. It is symtomatic of an unrealistic infatuation with mechanistic materialist philosophy in science.

You say that pre-Adamite humanity had the potential to achieve full humanity but until God stepped in this could never happen. But if his brain was every bit as capable as ours, how can he not have spontaneously started to think in abstract ways and developed moral value systems etc.?

But it would be verified by the rare case of an infant surviving in the wild without human contact (raised by animals?), assuming any of the numerous stories of such "feral children" have any truth to them. If so it becomes obvious that nothing spontaneously develops just because of potential, but that it is inherited in the parent-child relationship.

And if you talking about the spontaneous development of that first abstract thought then you are predicatably in the same situation as in the evolution vs. creation debate with regards to the physical development of man. We are free to think that it came from God or that it was all spontaneous (body of man and mind of man), for if you are looking for scientific proof, I believe that is impossible. It is the nature of spiritual causes that science will never be able to verify them, no more than it will ever be able to measure God.

- Sure, communication occurs much faster than genetic change. But isn't it fairly certain that Australia, the east indies and the Americas have been totally isolated in the last 10,000 years? If God only made contact with one man and one woman living in Mesopotamia, and this occurred within the last 10,000 or so years, the Australian indigenous peoples cannot have shared in the benefits.

Well I have a couple of responses to that too.
1) Just how accurate is this 10,000 year estimate? The last migration across the Bering strait was supposedly possible about 11,000 years ago, but this was a correction from a previous estimate 14,500 years ago. We do not have exact dates for anything. When was Adam and Eve? When was the last comunication accross the Bering strait? There are a lot of things we really do not know.

2) Is the apparent isolation you talk about really absolute or only relative? How extensive was the interaction of the Vikings with the New world? Now there is evidence of cultural interaction between the Americas and the Pacific Islands. Can we really say for sure that there has been absolutely no interaction between Asia and Austraila for the last 10,000 years?

It is believed that Easter Island was colonized around A.D. 300 by Polynesians from the Marquesas Islands or Mangareva, as part of an eastward migratory trend that originated in Southeast Asia around 2000 B.C.

Were the archipelagos dotting the South American Pacific coastline stepping-stones for cross-cultural interaction over 500 years ago?

The humble sweet potato is one of the most significant pieces of evidence that gives weight to the cultural exchange theory — native to South America, it is common in the South Pacific where it could have only dispersed with the help of human travellers.

My point is simply that previous ideas of the isolation of the Americas and other locations may be some what exaggerated. If it really only took one man and woman to start it all then it wouldn't take any more than that to get it to the far corners of the earth. Sure there are difficulties, but we are swimming is such a vast sea of ignorance that nearly anything is possible.