Re: A question for Progressive Creationists

Pattle Pun (
Sun, 25 Apr 1999 13:17:45 -0500 (CDT)

Although I have not thoroughly researched the new anthropological
finds, the discovery seems to be consistent with my view that "a
considerable part of the economic culture as God gave it to humans before
the Fall might have been lost at an early date and then rediscovered
gradually" as suggested by Gen. 3:17-19. In other words, humans
"devolved" after the Fall and then graudual cultural and physical
development took place to the stage of modern man. I think "Progressive
Creationism" is still a robust position in the discussion of
Creation/Evolution, as suggested by a recent article in PSCF (Dec. 1998?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, Glenn R. Morton wrote:

> Given the discovery last week of a possible Neanderthal/Modern human
> hybrid, I have a question for the progressive creationists. The current
> most widely held formulation of this view places the discontinuity
> between animal and human between the Neanderthals(and other early
> hominids) and anatomically modern humans. God, it is claimed, directly
> created anatomically modern man to be special, to have communinion with
> him and to clearly be different than the beasts of the field, like
> Neanderthals and their ilk.
> Over the week I have read other accounts of the discovery and reading
> somewhat between the lines, here is what I expect the scientific reports
> to contain. The skeleton had an anatomically modern human chin (which
> neanderthals did not possess) and other anatomically modern skull
> traits, but his body had the muscle attachments characteristic of
> neanderthals. Neanderthal muscle attachments were different than ours.
> They were extremely strong and some people believe that this evolved in
> response to the way they hunted big game (by getting them to charge and
> at the last minute stepping aside and grabbing the animals fur and
> using short knives to stab the animal and the Neanderthal was carried
> along).
> No anatomically modern human has Neanderthal-type muscle attachments.
> If this boy had those types of attachements, then he was a hybrid, no
> doubt. And if he was a hybrid, then here is the question:
> Why would God create Adam as an anatomically modern man with an ability
> to interbreed with the animals? IN the progressive creationist view Adam
> was supposed above the beasts of the field. So why would God create the
> crown of creation in a fashion to be able to produce offspring with
> beasts?????
> To me, this possibility destroys the viability of the progressive
> creationist view, as currently formulated. Any comments?
> --
> glenn
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology