Re: The death of the RTB model

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Mon Feb 20 2006 - 16:27:45 EST

This is for Bill Hamilton and Burgy

Bill Wrote:

>I presume you want Adam placed 5MYA to ensure that he is the ancestor of all humans. But that requires one to play fast >an loose with the genealogies. Is that any better than Dick's solution placing Adam 7000 YA and declaring him the
>_federal_ head of the human race? I realize you're trying to devise a history that is both true and will satisfy the
>conservative Christians you grew up with, but tell me truthfully: how have they received your history in "Foundation, Fall
>and Flood"? I'm not trying to be critical. Like you I'd give my right arm (hypocritical caveat here: I'm left handed) to have a >history that was scientifically defensible and acceptable to the conservative Christians I worship with.

Yes, I think preserving the genetical unity of humanity is important. To place Adam in the neollithic means that some of us are not descended from Adam and others are. In Dick's view, my wife is a descendant of Adam and I am not.  Whether we like it or not, such a view would eventually give rise to a racist theology where the 'are descendeds' think they are better than the 'aren't descendeds'.  Humans given a choice between behaving well and behaving badly usually chose to behave badly.

There is another reason for moving Adam back.  The archaeological record is such that we see very humanlike activity millions of years ago. Terry called it 'foreshadowing' or something like that. But the problem is, it isn't foreshadowing, it is doing it. It is engaging in art, it is making boats to cross the sea, it is evidence of language possibly among the H. erectines.  But with all those things we don't want to say they are human.  And that is another reason for worry about the Late Adam idea. If we can believe that people who behaved like us are not human because they simply LOOK different, what is to prevent us from picking some group (blacks) and saying, you look different, I think you are merely a bipedal hominid but not human????  Hugh Ross' view has the same danger. In light of these views of the archaics as not human, one could not logically consistently argue against doing what I describe with some modern group. It is easy to do by merely saying the archaics hung around for a while and still live today.

As to how the YECs have received my views?  Why would you ask me to tell you truthfully??? you know me better than that.  I will always try to be honest about my position in the  market place and you are just asking again for what I said yesterday.  They have not received it well--because of its belief in evolution, and the old earthers think I am daft to do what I do, having seen them use the term 'concordist' as a derogatory term(although I think many of them are daft to believe that which is not actually true.) But clearly, my views have had zero, nada, leeng impact on the world.  But does that mean one should give up or stop? 

Burgy wrote:

>But it is NOT true of PCs (of which I claim to be one) in general. I think, for instance, you might have a hard time >establishing that case against Bernard Ramm. Even judged by the knowledge of Ramm's day, he ignored the nested hierarchy of morphology when he wrote:

 "In progressive creationism there may be much horizontal
radiation.  The amount is to be determined by the geological
record and biological experimentation.  But there is no vertical
radiation.  Vertical radiation is only by fiat creation.  A root-
species may give rise to several species by horizontal radiation,
through the process of the unraveling of gene potentialities or
recombination.  Horizontal radiation could account for much which
now passes as evidence for the theory of evolution.  The gaps in
the geological record are gaps because vertical progress takes
place only by creation." ~ Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of
Science and Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1954), p. 191

But I do agree with Ramm on polygenism, which is what Dick Fischer's view is a variant of:

"The reason for this assertion is obvious.  The sin of Adam
imputed to humanity depends on the unity of humanity, not on the
antiquity of humanity.  Theology is more concerned with the proof
that man is one, rather than the near or far antiquity of man. 
Polygeneticism is far more damaging to theology than any teaching
of the vast antiquity of man.  In order to clear the atmosphere
about the antiquity of man certain notions very widespread among
evangelicals must be corrected." ~ Bernard Ramm, The Christian
View of Science and Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1954), p.216

And, surprisingly, Ramm would seem to allow for my position of seeking to find the origin of Adam via science rather than theology as many on this board are want to do:

    "The Bible itself offers no dates for the creation of man. 
We mean by this that there is no such statement in the text of
the Bible at any place.  We may feel that 4000 B.C. or 15,000
B.C. is more consonant with the Bible than a date of 500,000 B.C.
 But we must admit that any date of the antiquity of man is an
inference from Scripture, not a plain declaration of Scripture.
     "If the anthropologists are generally correct in their
dating of man (and we believe they are), and if the Bible
contains no specific data as to the origin of man, we are then
free to try to work out a theory of the relationship between the
two, respecting both the inspiration of Scripture and the facts
of science." ~ Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and
Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 220

But many TE's and OECs have fallen into the mtDNA trap and then have difficulty changing their theology when the facts change.


Received on Mon Feb 20 16:28:11 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 20 2006 - 16:28:11 EST