Glenn Morton wrote:
> Now, the theological implications of this are obvious. If we have
> Neanderthal genes, even one Neanderthal gene, we simply can't have
> apologetical scenarios which separate us from them as is done by many of the
> apologists. So, why don't apologists pay attention to data like this? I
> wish I knew.
Still catching up ...
One reason many Christians feel that relationship with Neanderthals is a
problem is the idea that God really only cares about human beings. This goes
deeper than specific questions about how to interpret Genesis &c. If only human
beings were created with some goal beyiond the merely biological, & only humans
are to be saved by Christ, then it's necessary to draw the line between humans &
all other organisms very sharply. We're in, they're out.
But in fact the biblical picture of God's intention for creation is much
broader than that. If we understand that God's care is for every living thing,
& that the purpose of the work of Christ is the salvation of "the creation",
"all things" &c, then it's not necessary to draw that line so sharply. That
doesn't mean that _Homo sap_ is on the same level as every other species, but
it's not the only one God cares about. God will save Neanderthals in a way
appropriate to "Neanderthalnis", chimps in a way appropriate to chimpness, &c,
just as the result of God's salvific action for humans is that we will be
ultimately what God intends humans to be. & then we can let anthropology &
related sciences try to determine what the biological relationships between
_Homo sapiens_ & other species has been without theological constraints.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 30 2002 - 23:07:09 EST