Re: The death of the RTB model

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Feb 20 2006 - 21:50:09 EST

--- glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

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.

I think you are making the assumption "not descended from Adam = not human."
But if Dick is right, Adam was commissioned to tell others about the Living God
-- the first missionary. It would seem that interpreting Genesis Dick's way
leads to the inevitable conclusion that Adam's contemporaries _were_ human --
and that God loved them enough to send Adam to them and several thousand years
later to send Jesus Christ to them.

As to how the YECs have received my views? Why would you ask me to tell you
truthfully???

Sorry -- it's just an expression

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?

Absolutely not. But perhaps it means one ought to continually search for
alternative explanations -- that still meet the test of plausibility in view of
all the evidence -- but that might be more palatable to conservative Christians.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Feb 20 21:51:57 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 20 2006 - 21:51:57 EST