Genesis Has No Evolutionary Framework

Alice C. Linsley

Many evolutionary creationists attempt to read Genesis through a Darwinian template and in doing so they distort the meaning. The ancients through whom God delivered this material did not think that humans and apes descend from a common ancestor. They believe that God created humans fully human from the beginning in a divine act at a moment in the distant past. There is no reason to reject this view since humans appear suddenly on the earth about 4 million years ago, and though these were anatomically archaic, they were nonetheless, fully human. We have evidence of hunting and butchering, control of fire, human dentition, erect walk, and opposing thumbs.

The discovery of a complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis at Hadar shows the deep, flat base and tarsal facets that "imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans." (Carol Ward, William H. Kimbel, Donald C. Johanson, Feb. 2011)

In 2011 researchers discovered jaw bones and teeth of four individuals in the Afar region of Ethiopia which date to between 3.3m and 3.5m years old. These archaic humans were alive at the same time as other groups of early humans, suggesting that it may be time to abandon the linear evolution hypothesis. Clearly, there were more archaic humans living in Africa 3 million years ago than has been generally recognized.

The writers of Genesis should be given credit for a worldview that is philosophically sound and supported by physical evidence. Their worldview cannot be made to align with all aspects of evolutionary science.

The worldview of Abraham's ancestors is grounded in their closeness to the natural world and their acute observation of patterns. They noted that humans reproduce only humans. They observed that the fig tree produces only figs and though the figs varied in shape, size and flavor, their "figness" remained. This is an essentialist worldview and it is described by the term "kinds" in Genesis.

The word min [מִין] according to Strong's H4327, refers to kind or species, yet "kind" and "species" do not have the same meaning. In Genesis "kind" pertains to fixed essence, not to a biological category. The Biblical "kind" refers to the original pattern of a created entity. It pertains more to essence than to form.

Screenshot of the Blue Letter Bible entry on the word “kind”

The term "kind" in Genesis 1 refers to biological organisms that reproduce themselves. God created this mechanism so that fruit bearing trees reproduce trees that bear fruit of the same kind. Ferns and other rhizome plants bring forth plants of their kind through the spread of subterranean root systems. Apes bring forth apes, not humans. While there may be modification of condition or form, the essence of an entity remains unchanged. This is called "Essentialism" in philosophy, and this is what is meant by the Biblical term "kind."

Essentialism is a very ancient metaphysical concept. It is the basis of Plato's Forms, an idea he borrowed from the ancient Egyptians. Plato studied for 13 years with an Egyptian priest and borrowed many ideas from the Egyptians. Many of these ideas are evident among Abraham's Nilo-Saharan ancestors. They are the people from whom we receive the creation stories in Genesis 1, 2 and 3, although Genesis 2-3 is the older story.

As poorly defined as the term "species" is in biology, biologists recognize that a "species" boundary is that point beyond which there is no reproductive generation. This is called horotely, a term that describes the rate at which an organism can change over time. It indicates a genetic boundary beyond which the organism cannot change even if the mutation rate is high. The word relates to Horus, the Fixer of Boundaries, also known as the son of the Creator. This Greek word relates to the words Horus, oros (boundary/landmark/term), horizon and hour.

The ancients believed that cosmic boundaries were fixed by Horus. Even today Christians believe that all things were made through Christ and that all things are sustained in Christ. In this sense Christ is the fixer of boundaries and the ground upon which all biological life is unified. This is why Christians are justified in questioning the common ancestry hypothesis.

It is true that essentialism is not as evident among organisms that lack binary features such as symmetry, bilateralism, or bicamaralism. These organisms are found in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers, long before the appearance of humans. The binary feature appears to signal greater complexity. The earliest fossils are neither vegetation nor animal. They are without symmetry and binary features. In the Precambrian organisms we find neither bilateralism nor any bivalves. Once binary features emerge we begin to see greater diversity and complexity (the so-called Cambrian "explosion" which lasted 90 million years).

It is interesting to note that the term min [מִין] is never used in the Bible in reference to humans. Humans are unique. They are made after another kind, in the image and likeness of the Creator. This is true of both archaic and modern humans.

When we speak of archaic humans and modern humans, the distinction is one of anatomical difference explained by local adaptation. The essence remains unchanged. The evidence concerning archaic humans does not support the hypothesis of common ancestry proposed by Darwinians. The oldest humans fossils date to about 4 million years and all the evidence indicates that these were essentially human, despite the small brain size. Brain size is not a measure of sophistication of thought.

Mary Leakey was convinced that her Australopithecus afarensis finds at Laetoli were homo, but Donald C. Johanson had already announced to the world that the A. afarensis was an ape. Mary expressed regret that “the Laetoli fellow is now doomed to be called Australopithecus afarensis.”

A. afarensis used polished bone tools to cut, chop and scrap, shared food, and used fire. Some of the earliest evidence of controlled fire by humans was found at Swartkrans in South Africa. Other sites that indicate fire use include Chesowanja near Lake Baringo, Koobi Fora and Olorgesailie in Kenya.

A. afarensis also had human dentition. In humans, the back teeth are larger than the front teeth (not so with apes), and the canines are not pointed. Humans also lack the characteristic diastema or tooth gap found in apes.

The so-called "Apes of the South" were fully human, though anatomically archaic, and they appeared suddenly and unheralded on the surface of the Earth about 4 million years ago. Humans appear to be a de novo creation. From the beginning humans have had a binary thought pattern, a binary structure, and a fixed essence.


Conclusion

Strong's and other similar study tools do not reflect the latest research. Many of the oldest Hebrew roots are found in African cognates. For example, ha-risoniym (righteous ancestors) in Psalm 79.8 is related to the Arabic rais (leader), the Hebrew raz (leader), the Aramiac resh, the Akkadian rishu, and the Yoruba orisha (deified ancestors).

Min among the ancient Nilotic peoples was a symbol of the life giving seed that comes from the Creator and gives life to growing things on earth. The Creator's symbol was the sun which was perceived to inseminate the earth. However, the term min is never used in the Bible in reference to humans. Humans are unique. They are made, not as plants from seeds, but molded in the image and likeness of the Creator. This is why onanism was considered such a great offense against the Creator. The seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of plants, which spring forth from the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth. Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 A.D. 191).

Related reading: Theories About the Cambrian Explosion; Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; The Binary Aspect of the Biblical Worldview; Questioning the Common Ancestry Hypothesis; A Theological and Scientific Conversation About Genesis;  Pre-Darwinian Taxonomy and Essentialism by David Stamos; Theories of Change and Constancy

Ham-Nye Debate: Another False Choice

"There are two fundamentally different battles raging in the current debates about evolution. The first pits nearly the entire scientific community against creationists, who believe that they are upholding the veracity of Scripture by denying that evolution happened at all. The second battle concerns not the fact of evolution but the standard neo-Darwinian explanation of it, and the issues at stake are primarily philosophical and scientific."--American physicist Stephen M. Barr


Alice C. Linsley

I did not watch the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate because it was bound to get my blood pressure up. My students wanted to talk about it on Wednesday and gave me the details and their opinions. Listening to their descriptions, I was reminded of the story of the elephant and the blind men. At least Nye touched the beast.

Both men failed to address the deeper questions surrounding evolution. Ham is ignorant of the science. He only knows to respond with the YEC talking points. Nye did not distinguish between the aspects of evolution that are absolutely factual with substantial physical and genetic evidence and the aspects that are theoretical still lacking substantial physical evidence. In other words, the public is no more enlightened on mutation, adaptation, common ancestry and natural selection than before the debate. Again, we were faced with a false choice between biblical illiteracy and biblical literalism.

That's all I have to say on the subject. For those who wish to read more I recommend (but do not necessarily agree with) these responses:

A Ken Ham Nightmare: Human Foot Prints Found Below Ice Age Deposits

Ken Ham Does Not Speak For Me
Faith and Science: A dialogue, not a debate (Conversation with Ian Barbour)
The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity
BioLogos Conversation: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye
#HamOnNye Post-Debate Round-Up
On Gaps and Overlaps


Related reading: Smoking Gun Evidence of an Ancient Earth; Is Scientific Dating of Fossils Reliable?; YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical; Objections to the Fundamentalist Reading of Genesis 1-5; Biblical Anthropology is Science; The Battle Over Genesis; The "Science Guy" Reveals His Ignorance; Millions of Years a Stumbling Block; A Scientific Timeline of Genesis; Science Journalists One Cause of Americans' Ambivalence?; Bishop Ussher Goofed

Clergy Poorly Informed on Theories of Creation

Christianity Today: Pastors' Positions on Creation vs. Evolution Vary by Region, Church Size


Regardless of which position they personally support, clergy agree that disagreements over origins harm Christian outreach. However, they disagree on the nature of this harm.

While 85 percent of YEC pastors assert that “Christian disagreement on matters of creation and evolution is compromising our witness to the world,” 63 percent of TE pastors disagree with the statement. Meanwhile, 63 percent of TE pastors assert that “The church’s posture toward science prevents many non-Christians from accepting Christianity”, while 59% of their YEC and PC counterparts disagree.

Read more here.

Clergy that are not informed about the choices beyond Darwinian Evolution or Young Earth Creationism are not prepared to lead their congregations in consideration of the scientific data and how it aligns very well with the data of Genesis.

Note that the Essentialist viewpoint is not considered in the survey. This is due to lack of information about this Biblical and scientifically supported position.


Related reading: YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical; Evangelicals Surrender Too Much Ground to Darwin; Thomas Nagel: Neo-Darwinian Conception is False; Theories of Creation; Between Biblical Literalism and Biblical Illiteracy; Evangelical Colleges Battle over Creationism

Missouri's Amendment 2

Missouri's Amendment 2 states: "No student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs."

This will apply to Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and atheists.

Does it violate the separation of Church and State?

Does it uphold the right of religious liberty for the individual?

Will this clarify in any way the unsubstantiated parts of Darwin's theory of evolution?

Will this clarify the false assumptions of Young Earth Creationists?

What do you think?


Related reading:  Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; The Evolution of Darwinian Evolution; Getting the Facts About Human Origins; The Battle Over Genesis; Between Biblical Literalism and Biblical Illiteracy

Keeping an Open Mind About the Origins of the Universe

Sheila Liaugminas

Can science prove or disprove the existence of God? Has the origin of creation without a creator come to be settled by science? Are these questions knowable, even by the brightest minds in the world? Yes, sort of, is the basic answer…

Except for the question of ‘settled science’, because it’s not settled and if anything, keeps advancing toward an undeniable conclusion that a creator was behind creation.

So says, more or less, Fr. Robert Spitzer, Jesuit philosopher, educator, author and executive producer of Cosmic Origins, a fascinating new film that explores modern scientific theories about how the universe came to be. Spitzer was my guest on radio Friday for a compelling hour.

He said the eight scientists featured in the film based their dialogue around the fundamental question ‘What is the evidence for God from physics?’ The answer is plenty, so much in fact, that “today there’s more evidence than you can possible imagine,” he stated. Then he added “Stephen Hawking kind of left them all out.”

He said scientific atheism is not scientific at all. And agnosticism can come from honest naturalism, and kind of stay there. “They won’t move to a supernatural explanation unless they’ve exhaused every other natural explanation,” he explained, and of course they’ll never be able to do that.

But a most interesting thing happened at Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party last January as assembled guests celebrated and conversed. Spitzer pointed to Lisa Grossman’s article in New Scientist to elaborate, but you need a subscription for more than the preview. Here's more:

You could call them the worst birthday presents ever. At themeeting of minds convened last week to honour Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday- loftily titled “State of the Universe” – two bold proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.

One shows that a problematic object called a naked singularity is a lot more likely to exist than previously assumed (see "Naked black-hole hearts live in the fifth dimension"). The other suggests thatthe universe is not eternal, resurrecting the thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without thehand of a supernatural creator.

While many of us may be OK with the idea of the big bang simply starting everything, physicists,including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.

For a while it looked like it might be possible to dodge this problem, by relying on models such as aneternally inflating or cyclic universe, both of which seemed to continue infinitely in the past as well asthe future. Perhaps surprisingly, these were also both compatible with the big bang, the idea that theuniverse most likely burst forth from an extremely dense, hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.

However, as cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston explained last week, that hope has been gradually fading and may now be dead. He showed that all these theories still demand a beginning.

A call came in from a listener in the Batavia, Illinois community near Fermilab, who asked for good resources so he could better understand the topic and engage the debate with local scientists hard-set in their elimination of God from the creation and evolution equation.

Grossman’s article was the first resource Spitzer pointed to. I’m happy to direct folks to his book as well, New Proofs for the Existence of God, in which he presents peer-review physics studies, “string theory, quantum cosmology, mathematical thoughts on infinity” and more, in an easily digestible collection of evidence. Spitzer, founder and president of the Magis Institute, also highly recommends Stephen Barr’s Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, reviewed here in First Things.

Barr begins his book by pointing out that the methods and discoveries of modern physics can and must be separated from the philosophical doctrine of materialism, which so often serves as a dogmatic and, as Barr goes on to show with great power and effectiveness, unsubstantiated faith among physicists.

Seems to me that’s a very important note, “unsubstantiated faith among physicists” who willfully hold to their beliefs in spite of growing evidence that counters or at least questions them.

According to Barr, it was never obvious that physics implied or presupposed a materialistic view of the universe, but the existence of such a connection has been rendered downright implausible by a series of developments in twentieth-century physics. In a series of lucid chapters, Barr addresses the question of whether the universe had a beginning, looks at the issue of whether the universe exhibits any evidence of design or purpose, and examines what contemporary physics (and mathematics) has to say about the nature of human beings—specifically on the question of whether our behavior is determined by physical laws and whether we have an immaterial nature. At each point, Barr shows that “recent discoveries have begun to confound the materialist’s expectations and confirm those of the believer in God.”

Alas, it will continue. But with a fascinating compilation of new data all the time adding to the pool of scientific evidence. Last week the headlines touted the discovery of the ‘God particle,’ which Spitzer explained has nothing to do with God but everything to do with marketing. The New York Times explains more here.

Cool stuff, but the coolest of all is the fullest possible exploration of available evidence in the world at the moment. When you’re open to that, you’re open toeverything, God and all.

From here.

Related reading:  Overview of Theories of Creation; Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; Is Genesis Really About Origins?; Invalid Science Against Religion Argument; Atheist Students Think Science is on Their Side

The Evolution of Darwinian Evolution

Can the essence (ousia) of an entity change over time so that it is no more? That is the central question to be addressed and the crux of the debate between Essentialists (such as Plato, Aristotle and Kripe) and Non-Essentialists (Heraclitus and Darwinian Materialists such as Dawkins).



Alice C. Linsley

Darwin's theory of evolution presumes the emergence of species over time by a naturalistic mechanism of "descent with modification."  Better adapted specimens survive as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code.  Beneficial mutations are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and produce well adapted species. Presumably the same mechanism can lead to the emergence of creatures that have little or no resemblance to their ancient ancestors. So Darwinians feel justified in proposing that camels and sharks had a common ancestor because they share an antigen receptor protein.

Evolutionary branching from a common ancestor attempts to explain the anatomical differences between humans, apes and prosimians, but the material evidence simply is not there.

The 47 million year old fossil (Darwinius masillae) found in Germany is touted as the transition between flying lemurs and humans. The fossil of the lemur-like creature named Ida is believed to offer evidence of evolutionary changes that led to primates standing upright - "a breakthrough that could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution." It was dubbed the "missing link" by the media. However, as Brian Richmond, a biological anthropologist, explains, "From this time period there are very few fossils, and they tend to be an isolated tooth here or maybe a tailbone there. So you can't say a whole lot of what that [type of fossil] represents in terms of evolutionary history or biology."

Darwin admitted that aspects of his theory seemed implausible when considering specific features, such as the human eye.  He wrote, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155)

Darwin also conceeded the fragility of his theory. He wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Ibid., p. 158)

Of course Darwin's theory does break down when it comes to the most complex of organisms: the human being. The earliest human fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all these features are found among humans today. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of paleontologist Tim White, "like modern-day humans in almost every feature." (See report here.)

When Jeremy DeSilva, an anthropologist at Worcester State College in Massachusetts, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus of fossil "hominins" between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the hominin ankle joints resembled those of modern humans. His research has shown that Australopithecus lacked the grasping toe typical of tree climbers, and its spine, pelvis, knees, and ankles were made for walking on two legs and not designed for tree climbing.

The claim of universality of the DNA code as a prediction of common descent does not align with known variations that violate this prediction. There appear to be specific fixed boundaries within the DNA code. It is ludicrous to assume that because nurse sharks and camels share an antigen receptor protein they are descended from a common ancestor. The DNA sequences that code for the proteins are different between sharks and camels. (Roux et al. 1998. The identification of a unusual antigen receptor protein structure found in camels and nurse sharks is not evidence of a common ancestor.)

Though images of humans emerging from apes appear in biology texts, no such image of camels emerging from sharks appears. If they did, the dullest of students would laugh and the brightest would express skepticism.

Doubts About the Veracity of Darwin's Theory

Despite Darwin's own doubts, Darwinism rules the day in schools, universities and the media. It has tentacles that stretch into government, education, medicine, ethics, economics and the social sciences. The Darwinian claim of universal common descent is ideologically-driven, not evidence-driven. The effect of this view is to blur the distinction between humans and other created species. Further, it perpetuates an idea that has no material support. Even evolutionary scientists question Darwin's theory of common descent. Jeremy DeSilva and Tim White are examples.

Initial resistance to Darwin's The Origin of Species came from scientists such as the naturalist William H. Hudson who wrote in his 1905 essay “Wasps”:

“One day an elder brother, on return from travel in distant lands, put a copy of the famous Origin of Species in my hands and advised me to read it. When I had done so, he asked me what I thought of it. 'It's false!' I exclaimed in a passion, and he laughed, little knowing how important a matter this was to me, and told me I could have the book if I liked. I took it without thanks and read it again and thought a good deal about it, and was nevertheless able to resist it teachings for years, solely because I could not endure to part with a philosophy of life, if I may so describe it, which could not logically be held, if Darwin was right, and without which life would not be worth having.

It is curious to see now that Darwin himself gave the first comfort to those who, convinced against their will, were anxious to discover some way of escape which would not involve the total abandonment of their cherished beliefs. At all events, he suggested the idea, which religious minds were quick to seize upon, that the new explanation of the origin of the innumerable forms of life which people on earth from one or a few primordial organisms afforded us a nobler conception of the creative mind than the traditional one. It does not bear examination, probably it originated in the author's kindly and compassionate feelings rather than in his reasoning faculties; but it gave temporary relief and served its purpose. Indeed, to some, to very many perhaps, it still serves as a refuge - this poor, hastily made straw shelter, which lets in rain and wind, but seems better to them than no shelter at all.”

Darwin's mentor at Cambridge, Adam Sedgwick, wrote to Darwin in 1859 and stated, "Passages in your book...greatly shocked my moral taste.'" Sedgwick added that "humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history" (from Richard Weikart's From Darwin to Hitler, 2004, p. 1).


An Excuse to Reject Conventional Morality

Many evolutionists have used Darwin to support their atheism. They reject the Biblical assertion that humans were not specially created and fully human from the beginning. Humans are merely another animal, not a creature in the divine image, deserving of no greater dignity than any other creature. Darwin could not have foreseen how his theory would stimulate unhealthy attitudes about life and human dignity. Eugenics, abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, euthanasia are advocated today by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists. Darwinism provided the theoretical basis upon which Hitler and his collaborators were able to convince many that the atrocities they were committing were for a higher good and therefore justifed.

Darwin's theory that all living things are engaged in a ruthless struggle for survival can be used to justify selfishness and brutality. Social Darwinism alleges a scientific basis for policies that demean the value of human life. Social Darwinists assert that progress is made when superior groups outcompete inferior ones for resources and territory, but who is to decide what constitutes superior and inferior?

In more recent years we have seen Darwinism play out in the slaughter of innocent children in Norway. A review of Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto reveals a mind deluded by neo-fascist and Darwinian precepts. Breivik confessed to a bombing and shooting massacre that left 77 dead in Norway

Breivik wrote in his manifesto that he is not religious, doubts God's existence, and does not pray.  Breivik hailed Darwinism, and wrote: "As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I'm not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

Many have used Darwinism to justify their rejection of conventional morality and the Judeo-Christian worldview. The Huxley brothers are another example. Aldous Huxley wrote: "Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their [purpose] that the world should be meaningless ... For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was ... liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom ..." (Ends and Means, 1938, pp. 270, 273).

Julian Huxley wrote, "The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a superhuman being is enormous" (Essays of a Humanist, 1966, p. 223).

The atheistic trend in Darwinism has a popular spokesman in Dawkins whose books have influenced the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowam Williams. We hear the Darwinian nuances in his speeches and writings.  Here is an example:

...in a world where exploitative and aggressive behaviour is commonplace, one of the "providential" tasks of human beings must be to limit damage and to secure space for the natural order to exist unharmed.

...the human task is to draw out potential treasures in the powers of nature and so to realise the convergent process of humanity and nature discovering in collaboration what they can become.
 
Darwin himself did not resonate with the atheism of the Huxleys and Dawkins. In a letter to John Fordyce in 1879, he wrote, “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

Fuel for Utopian Ideologies

The evolutionary view of human progress over time contributed to the utopian dreams of many Enlightenment thinkers and their disciples.  Such optimism was expressed by the French philosopher Condorcet (1743-1794) who saw "the human race, emancipated from its shackles, released from the empire of fate and from that of the enemies of its progress, advancing with a firm and sure step along the path of truth, virtue and happiness."

The atrocities committed by the Nazi regime and Stalin and by colonists in Africa and the Americas is sufficient evidence that humanity has not progressed toward Utopia.

If humans progress steadily in knowledge, why did Europeans in the Middle Ages believe that the earth is flat when people in Abraham's time knew it was a sphere? Why were Londoners living in darkness and filth when the people of Southern Spain had gas-lit streets and plumbing? If we are progressing in happiness and fulfillment why are many primitive peoples more content that peoples living in advanced techological societies? Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) argued that advances in the sciences and civilization can corrupt rather than improve humanity.


Forcing Scientific Disciplines into a Darwinian Mold

Cultural evolution is a recent application of Darwinism to human societies and behavior. Alex Mesoudi's book Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences represents this approach.  It is less about anthropology than about how anthropology can be made to evolve along the lines that Darwinians think it should. Mesoudi oversimplifies to demonstrate that human culture represents an evolutionary process that exhibits the Darwinian mechanisms of variation, competition, and inheritance. His book does not lead to a better understanding of the diverse expressions of human culture. Rather it is a manual for obfuscation; a thought experiment that breaks down when doing practical anthropology.

Darwin's theory seems plausible to people who have not investigated the data. If it were true, there would be no need to force the sciences into a Darwinian mold. The sciences would converge. However, the sciences do not converge on aspects of Darwin's theory. Astronomers recognize a clocklike pattern in the skies. Geneticists recognize certain unchanging patterns which form the basis of their research. Physicists recognize unchanging physical laws. Anthropologists find that humans are essentially the same regardless of their environments.

We can agree that species change over time. We can agree that mutation, environmental adaptation and isolation produce diversity, but lacking the material evidence, we cannot agree that camels emerged from sharks or that humans emerged from simians. Many hundreds of scientists would agree with Dr Colin Reeves, Professor of Mathematical Studies at Coventry University, who has said, “Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems - and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favor.”


Related reading: An Scientific Timeline of Genesis; Theories of Change and Constancy; Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; Evolutionists Ignorant of Culture; Science Teachers and Creationism; Getting the Facts About Human Origins; The Battle Over Genesis; Among Many Peoples, Little Genomic Variety; Is Genesis Really About Human Origins?; Kansas Science Bill Defeated

Rowan Williams' Confusion

Rowan Williams on the Christian Duty to the Environment

It is a rather different reading of the biblical tradition to that often (lazily) assumed to be the orthodoxy of Judeo-Christian belief. We hear regularly that this tradition authorises the exploitation of the earth through the language in Genesis about "having dominion" over the non-human creation. As has been argued elsewhere, this is a very clumsy reading of what Genesis actually says; but set alongside the Levitical code and (as Ellen Davis argues) many other aspects of the theology of Jewish Scripture, the malign interpretation that has latterly been taken for granted by critics of Judaism and Christianity appears profoundly mistaken. But what remains to be teased out is more about the nature of the human calling to further the "redemption" of persons and world. If liberating action is allowing things and persons to stand before God free from claims to possession, is the responsibility of human agents only to stand back and let natural processes unfold?

In Genesis, humanity is given the task of "cultivating" the garden of Eden: we are not left simply to observe or stand back, but are endowed with the responsibility to preserve and direct the powers of nature. In this process, we become more fully and joyfully who and what we are – as St Augustine memorably says, commenting on this passage: there is a joy, he says, in the "experiencing of the powers of nature". Our own fulfilment is bound up with the work of conserving and focusing those powers, and the exercise of this work is meant to be one of the things that holds us in Paradise and makes it possible to resist temptation. The implication is that an attitude to work which regards the powers of nature as simply a threat to be overcome is best seen as an effect of the Fall, a sign of alienation. And, as the monastic scholar Aelred Squire, points out (Asking the Fathers, p.92), this insight of Augustine, quoted by Thomas Aquinas, is echoed by Aquinas himself in another passage where he describes humanity as having a share in the working of divine Providence because it has the task of using its reasoning powers to provide for self and others (aliis, which can mean both persons and things). In other words, the human task is to draw out potential treasures in the powers of nature and so to realise the convergent process of humanity and nature discovering in collaboration what they can become. The "redemption" of people and material life in general is not a matter of resigning from the business of labour and of transformation – as if we could – but the search for a form of action that will preserve and nourish an interconnected development of humanity and its environment. In some contexts, this will be the deliberate protection of the environment from harm: in a world where exploitative and aggressive behaviour is commonplace, one of the "providential" tasks of human beings must be to limit damage and to secure space for the natural order to exist unharmed. In others, the question is rather how to use the natural order for the sake of human nourishment and security without pillaging its resources and so damaging its inner mechanisms for self-healing or self-correction. In both, the fundamental requirement is to discern enough of what the processes of nature truly are to be able to engage intelligently with them.

From here.


What I find interesting is this sentence:

in a world where exploitative and aggressive behaviour is commonplace, one of the "providential" tasks of human beings must be to limit damage and to secure space for the natural order to exist unharmed.

If we apply this to the divinely established order of male-female relations, we are faced with the providential task of defending marriage between a man and a woman and opposing homosex as against the natural order. Had Rowan Williams taken this step the Anglican Communion would have been spared a great deal of pain and suffering during his beleaguered term. However, the Archbishop fails to make this logical connection because of his consent to convergent evolution. He appears to be influenced more by Richard Dawkins (as in his The Blind Watchmaker) than by the book of Genesis. Either the Bible is right in asserting a fixed order with fixed genetic boundaries, or it is wrong.  Apparently, Rowan believes it is wrong because he makes this contrary statement:

the human task is to draw out potential treasures in the powers of nature and so to realise the convergent process of humanity and nature discovering in collaboration what they can become.

Clearly the Archbishop is spinning a "Christian" viewpoint on creation that is not a Biblical viewpoint.  He is committed to green action, but not to the divinely-established order of creation.




What does the Bible teach?


The Bible teaches a fixed binary order in creation, not a convergent process of becoming. Obviously, Rowan Williams cannot have both a fixed order and a convergent process of becoming, so which is it, Sir?

Homosex was in the same category as onanism. Both were regarded as grievous violations of the fixed boundaries in the order of creation. The seed that should fall to the earth is the seed of plants, which spring forth from the earth. The seed of man should fall on his own type (the womb), from which man comes forth.

In our pleasure-consumed society, sex has become a comodity. The more orgiastic and pornographic, the better the comodity. Sex as comodity misses the mark of God's righteousness by so far that it isn't even proper to discuss the two together.

There is much we do not understand about sexual attraction. There is also much false information about homosexuality, much of it built upon the discredited Kinsey Report. The issue is not homosexuality or even heterosexuality, but the use of the body, which is to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. Sex within marriage is the only approved sex in the Bible and in Holy Tradition, and both understand marriage as between a man and a woman.

Related reading:  Levi-Strauss and Jacques Derrida on Binary Oppositions; Binary Distinctions and Kenosis; How to Invite Ridicule; Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; More Questions on Sex; Ideologies Opposed to Holy Tradition

The Battle Over Genesis

According to a recent Gallup Poll, only 15% of Americans think evolution happens as a natural process. The other 85% thinks evolution does not occur or that it is supernaturally directed by God (theistic evolution). The success of Young-Earth Creationism is evident in that as many as 47% of those polled believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

In a 2001 Gallup Poll, over 28-32% subscribed to Evolution and 48-57% subscribed to Creationism. No distinction was made between Old-Earth Creationism and Young-Earth Creationism.

In the most recent poll, 46% of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

Gallup reports here that:

Most Americans believe in God, and about 85% have a religious identity. It is not surprising as a result to find that about 8 in 10 Americans hold a view of human origins that involves actions by God -- that he either created humans as depicted in the book of Genesis, or guided a process of evolution. What no doubt continues to surprise many scientists is that 4 out of 10 Americans believe in the first of these explanations.


These views have been generally stable over the last 28 years. Acceptance of the creationist viewpoint has decreased slightly over time, with a concomitant rise in acceptance of a secular evolution perspective. But these shifts have not been large, and the basic structure of beliefs about human beings' origins is generally the same as it was in the early 1980s.


Americans' attitudes about almost anything can and often do have political consequences. Views on the origins of humans are no exception. Debates and clashes over which explanations for human origins should be included in school textbooks have persisted for decades. With 40% of Americans continuing to hold to an anti-evolutionary belief about the origin of humans, it is highly likely that these types of debates will continue.


Every student should read The Evolution of Darwinian Evolution.



Why Just Genesis Matters



It appears that the creation-evolution conversation has reached a stalemate. Young-Earth Creationism may be declining among some Evangelicals, especially those influenced by the BioLogos crowd. However, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists alike tend to think that evolution is the only alternative to literalism, and that is not true. An anthropological approach to Genesis acknowledges Earth's great age and the remote origins of humanity without accepting the Darwinian theory of human origins, for which there is no substantial evidence. Biblical Anthropology, as scientific study of the text, requires setting aside both ideological templates in order to determine the meaning in cultural context. This is a labor to which I am fully committed.

It is also a fruitful approach to conversation with teenagers.  Today’s teens think empirically. They are intelligent. They want to know the How and Why. Simply telling them that the Bible is God’s Word and that it is infallible and true, is not enough. If the Bible is true it should align with the data. If Noah experienced a catastrophic flood, there should be physical evidence of that in the region where Noah lived. If the descendants of Noah spread out over the earth, there should be DNA evidence of that dispersion. Such evidence does exist and yet few are providing the next generation with this information. Teens are going to college environments which are increasingly hostile to Christianity and they are going ill-equipped to defend the veracity of the Bible. As the Gallup Polls show, the conversation about Genesis is stuck in the mid-1980s.

As Genesis is the foundation of the whole of the Bible, it is not surprising that it should stir conflict and confusion. I hope that Just Genesis will help readers break out of the stalemate and move forward with bold faith that the whole of the Bible speaks reliable truth that can be confirmed and will continue to be confirmed.


Related reading: YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical;  Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; Getting the Facts About Human Origins; Theories of Creation: An Overview; Between Biblical Literalism and Biblical Illiteracy; Objections to the Fundamentalist Reading of Genesis 1-5

Potts' Variability Hypothesis Has Biblical Support

Alice C. Linsley



Paleoanthropologist Rick Potts is the director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program and curator of anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History. His research pieces together a record of Earth’s environmental change and human adaptation to environmental instability.

In this NOVA interview Dr. Pott's explains his "climate variability hypothesis" which he sees as a significant factor in human adaptability, settlement and migration. His idea has Biblical support.

Dr. Rick Potts

Dr. Potts said:

Climate change had always been on people's minds when it came to human evolution. The idea that was around for a long time is that the establishment of a savanna environment, the grassy environment with a few trees, was critical to human evolution early on, and that and the Ice Age later on presented the challenging environment in which humans evolved.

But when I began the work here at Olorgesailie, we kept seeing layer after layer of environmental change, from soils to volcanic ashes to a lake to a drought when the lake completely evaporated. We saw this through 700,000 years, and I began to think, well, maybe it's not the particular environment of a savanna that was important, but the tendency of the environment to change, to vary in very dramatic ways. And we saw that the large grazing animals of the savanna—elephants, baboons, pigs, zebras, all of whom ate grass—disappeared in the time period when worldwide climate began to vary the most.

So it dawned on me: Rick, you're an anthropologist. Maybe this has something to do with human evolution, and it's not the survival of the fittest in any one environment but the survival of the more versatile, the more general and flexible creatures that would really persist over time. This gave me a new insight into human evolution. The origin of stone tools, the expansion of the brain, and the complexity of social life that we see with the emergence of our own species may actually be a response not to just the dry savanna or the cold Ice Age but to the wide and dramatic variability of climate over time.

In some cases the landscape change occurred within a few thousand years. But this is all within a larger cycle of changing—Earth's orbit around the sun, and changes from wet to dry in tropical Africa, and, later in time, changes that were on [a scale of] 100,000 years between ice ages and interglacial warmth.

Olorgesailie inspired our idea that climate variability was an important driving force in human evolution. But we had to look outside of Olorgesailie to many other early human sites to really test the idea. What we have found is that the most prolonged periods of climate variability early on corresponded with the origin of stone tools and of eating meat, and the origin of our own genus, Homo. Then, later on, another prolonged period of climate variability, very dramatic, corresponded with the origin of modern human behavior and our own species.

(Read more here.)

The key points of Pott's hypothesis are evident.  Life on Earth is sustained by water. Climate has an impact of the availability of water. Factors that influence water accumulation in lakes and rivers are Earth's climate cycles and plate tectonics. When water sources disappear, humans and aminals must seek other sources. Where abundant water sources exist, there is greater evidence of human habitation.




Life Depends on Water

A close reading of Genesis reveals that climate is certainly a factor in archaic human settlement and migration. Humans settled near major bodies of water. This is where they hunted large game and buthered them with stone hand tools.  During rainy periods, lakes swelled and during dry periods, lakes disappeared.  Climate cycles caused old dry basins to fill with water. This swelling and shrinking of water systems is evident from satellite photos taken of Earth's great rivers and lakes.

Neolithic peoples in the Sahara enjoyed abundant water.  The Nile connected to the Chadic and Niger water systems through a series of shallow lakes in the Sahara. This explains the common plant and animal species is found in all three river valleys. The now dry Botswanan lake was once a sea. Some of Africa's earliest human populations lived on the edges of this great lake, as evidenced by the thousands of stone tools found there. These include maceheads that date between 80,000 and 100,000 years.

Between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago all of the region between Lake Chad and the Nile was wet. The climate had changed, ushering in years of persistent, heavy rains. A briefer period of rain lasted between 3000 and 1900 B.C. This is the the time of Noah's flood. Noah was a Proto-Saharan ruler in region of Lake Chad. People living in this area, called "Bor-No" (Land of Noah), claim that this is Noah's homeland.

Lake Chad has been shrinking for centuries, but today rains are returning to the Sahara. West Africa is receiving abundant convective rainfall. At the close of "Earth's Great Year" in the summer of 1998, air and water temperatures peaked and this has affected rainfall in some of Earth's most arid regions.

Tropical temperatures (latitude 20N - 20S)

In 2010, Pakistan saw catastrophic flooding from the Indus River. These NASA photos show the striking contrast within a single year.

NASA image captured in 2009

NASA image captured in 2010

Geologic Factors

Tectonics also played a role. Rifting and continental extension creates water systems and inland seaways such as the Humer Seaway in North America.

About 150,000 years ago there was a major uplift of the Angolan ridge in equatorial Africa. This meant a permanent supply of water flowing to the Upper Nile and prompted migration to that area. Lakes formed in the basins, large enough to support fish, crocodile and hippopotamus. Early hunters camped along the lakes, as evidenced by heaps of domestic refuse at many sites along ancient lakes in Niger, Chad and Kenya.

Lake Chad filled and merged with the Mega-Chad Sea, creating a body of water comparable in size of modern Sudan. The overflow spilled southwest into the Benue Trough and flowed to the Atlantic. The Nile was transformed from a slow stream into a roaring river with mile-deep gorges. This was the beginning of the wet period that would turn the Sahara into vast grasslands able to support elephants, antelopes, gazelles, ostriches, giraffes, and hyenas.




River Civilizations Emerged

This extended wet period led to the establishment of a Nilotic civilization which appears to have climaxed in dynastic Egypt and in the Kushite expansion into Mesopotamia (Gen. 10:8-12). The Kushite expansion lead to the river-based Sumerian and Akkadian civilizations. These civilizations were dependent upon river commerce and the rulers controlled and taxed that commerce.

To understand the Kushite expansion we must consider a factor beyond climate and river commerce, namely, the custom of sent-away royal sons, a feature of human adaptation that Potts has not considered. The marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Proto-Saharan and Nilotic rulers drove expansion and migration out of Africa through the custom of sending away firstborn sons who were expected to establish territories for themselves.




Sent-Away Sons

Genesis 2:24 speaks of how a man is to move away after marriage. This refers to sent-away sons of the ruling lines among Abraham's ancestors. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall become one flesh.” The married son was expected to leave his parents and to establish a new household.  Most Westerners tend not to respect grown men who stay home, whether married or not. Stay-at-home sons often compete with their fathers or become "momma's boys." Jacob's stay-at-home son was Reuben and Reuben slept with his father's concubine, Bilhah (Gen. 35:22; 49:4). David's son Absalom did the same thing. Absalom ordered that a tent be set up on the palace roof where everyone could see it (ii Sam. 16:2). There Absalom went in and had sex with his father's concubines. This action represented an attempt to usurp the ruler's authority.

An anthropologist reading Genesis 2:24 finds evidence of the establishment of a new household geographically separate from the husband’s family. This is called “neolocal residence.”  However, analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Abraham’s Horite people indicates that the neolocal pattern does not apply to the firstborn sons of the patriarch’s wives. It applies only to sent-away sons who did not ascend to the thrones of their fathers or maternal grandfathers.  Most sons of concubines also were sent away and often served as vassals of the firstborn sons of wives.

Another feature of the Horite ruler-priest marriage and ascendency structure is alluded to in Genesis 2:24 which speaks of “cleaving to the wife.”  This indicates matrilocal residence, an arrangement where the newly married couple lives with or in close proximity to the bride’s family. This pertains to the firstborn son of the patriarch’s second (cousin or niece) wife. This son was the heir to his maternal grandfather, after whom he was named, and he lived with or near his mother’s people. So Abraham's firstborn son by his second wife belonged to the household of Joktan, Keturah's father, after whom he was named.

Patrilocal residence pertained only to firstborn sons of the half-sister wife. This seems strange given the insistence of Bible scholars that ancient Hebrew society was patriarchal. This is why Isaac remained in Abraham's territory and why Abraham gave gifts to his other sons and sent them away from Isaac (Gen. 25:6).

Genesis 2:24 pertains to sons who lived away from their biological fathers. This includes “sent-away sons” and the firstborn son of the patriarch’s second wife. Jacob's case is especially interesting. He was not Isaac's firstborn son and though he attempted to rob that birthright from Esau, Jacob established his residence with his mother's people. This suggests that Jacob and Esau may not have been twins. They may have been Isaac's firstborn sons by different wives. Esau was the firstborn of Isaac's first wife who would have been Isaac's half-sister. Jacob would have been the firstborn son of Isaac's second wife. As the second wife was either a cousin or niece, as was Rebecca to Isaac, Jacob would have been Rebecca's firstborn son. As such he would belong to the household of his maternal grandfather, Bethuel. However, this doesn't mean that Jacob was heir to Bethuel's throne in Padan-Aram. Bethuel's heir appears to have been Laban.

Sent-away sons is a prominent theme in Genesis. Some see the story of Adam's expulsion from the garden as the first example.  However, Adam's historicity cannot be proven.  among verifiably historical figures we see this pattern with Cain who was banished for killing his brother. we find it at the end of Genesis in the account of Joseph who was sold into Egyptian captivity by his brothers.

The pattern continues in Exodus where Moses is forced to leave Egypt after killing a fellow Egyptian.  He travels to his Midianite kin and marries a patrilineal cousin, Zipporah. This suggests that Isha, Amram's cousin wife, was a Midianite bride. The Midianites were descendants of Abraham by his cousin wife Keturah.

Other sent-away sons include Ishmael and Yishbak, both sons of Abraham. The name Yishbak means “sent away.”


Related reading: Genesis and Climate Change; Climate Cycles Indicate a Dynamic Earth; Climate and Noah's Flood; When the Sahara Was Wet; Water Systems Connected Nile and Central Africa;
Sub-Saharan DNA of Modern Jews; Abraham's Sons

Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin

The following is an email correspondance with Biblical Anthropologist Susan Burns.  Susan and I had the opportunity to meet last summer in Washington.  She is bright, articulate, highly intuitive and a great stimulation to my research. Susan writes, "A point I am trying to make in my blog is that unless we incorporate the contribution of religious tradition, we will never understand what has made us human."

Alice,

I am very curious about your views on human evolution. For some reason, I assumed you agreed with Darwin's basic premise although I can't remember what post I read that brought me to that conclusion. Could you elaborate on your views? I am sure they are very insightful.

You stated that H. Afarensis was human and I would love to hear your reasoning on this subject. Although it is difficult to determine what is the criteria for "human", I am sure your opinion is more informed than most. I say that because of the same reasons you outline in your frustrations about young earthers. IMHO Australopithecines have the dentition for papyrus consumption so that is the human line of descent.

I am not hung up on race but there is some kind of genome relationship to the sons of Noah. What a beautiful design! First we are isolated and evolve adaptations to regional conditions and then we are mixed together and use the best of the variables for new adaptations.

Which brings me to the million dollar question: How do you reconcile Genesis and Darwin?


Kind regards,

Susan

Susan,

As you are aware, my research is on-going so I am not able to speak definitively on the Genesis-Darwin question. I do agree with this statement:  "The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin." -- Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1994)

The Young-Earthers' simplistic view that the races came from the three sons of Noah is without support in genetics and in Genesis. Distinct populations descend from them, but not races. I discuss this here.

Evolutionists speak of "species" and "genus" and paint a picture consistent with their ideology. They persist in classifications that confuse people. A species is either human or ape. Darwin's view that we share a common ancestor remains unproven. The differences between ape and human fossils is obvious. I prefer to speak of archaic human populations and modern human populations. That there are some anatomical differences between these is not indicative of evolutionary branching but is evidence of human adaptation to environment.

Additionally, a range of anatomical features is to be expected among human populations that were isolated and practiced endogamy. This is one of the observations Darwin made concerning the isolation of species. 

Further, most archaic populations lived in dense rain forests in the equatorial belt. They were well adapted to the heavy wet conditions. This is indicated by the evidence of air sacks in the throat, as do apes of the tropics. However, this does not mean that these human populations evolved from apes or that humans and apes had a common ancestor. It simply means that Darwin was right about adaptability of species. Humans exhibit great adaptability.  I agree with you that this has been divinely guided.

In the Bible, Adam and Eve represent the First Couple created by God. If this is historically true, they would have lived before 3.6 million years ago. That is when A. afarensis lived in tropical Africa. There is no reason to assume that A. afarensis were not human. The morphology of the hyoid that suggests this population had air sacks in the throat is not indicative of them being apes. The same hyoid bone shape has been found in other human populations as an adaption to jungle or tropical environments such as existed in Israel around 60,000 B.C. Similar hyoid structure was found with the archaic population that lived in the Kebara Caves in Israel. All other traits of A. afarensis indicate that this population was fully human, including evidence of controlled fire.

When it comes to natural selection, human populations are unique among animal species.  Many factors have an impact on human survival and adaptation. These include imagination, innovation, diplomacy, intuition, collective memory, kinship and non-random mating structures. Molecular genealogists recognize mating structure as a key factor in genetic flow. This is where my research on the marriage pattern of Abraham's Nilotic ancestors comes into play. This unique marriage pattern was well established among Abraham's ruler-ancestors between 4000-3000 B.C., and the ascendancy of firstborn sons by two wives drove the migration out of Africa into Mesopotamia and into West Central Africa.

I have no doubt that A. afarensis was an archaic human population.  The term Australopithecus afarensis was coined by South African anatomist Donald C. Johanson. These remains were first found in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1973. For about 20 years A. afarensis was described as the earliest known “human ancestor species.” Australopithecus means “Ape of the South” and afarensis refers to the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia where the fossils were found. Johanson now recognizes that this was an archaic human species. The first discovered skeleton of this population was named "Lucy" and she was described as Homo by Mary Leakey. She was not pleased with Johanson's attempt to classify her Hadar find as ape.

Since 1974, many more A. afarensis bones have been found, mainly in Cameroon, Ethiopia and Tanzania. All are at least 3 million years old. The bone structure reveals that these were archaic humans. They were erect and had human ankle bones.

When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus fossils of  these 4.12 to 1.5 million year remains, he discovered that all of the ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle bones are quite distinct from those of apes. (Read about DeSilva’s research here.)

As you point out, the Australopithecine had human dentition.  I agree that dentition for papyrus consumption is indicative of early archaic humans. This would be expected for river, coastal and marsh populations. Archaic humans lived near the major water sources which ancient rulers came to control.

All the evidence surrounding the Australopithecine points to archaic humans.  They walked upright, used butchering tools and controlled fire. Further, it appears that they shared food which they gathered/hunted collectively. This has never been observed among apes, as far as I know.

Best wishes,

Alice


Alice,

Darwin's theory does not propose humans evolved from apes. It simply says we have a common ancestor. Although I am sure you are aware of this, it does seem to be a sticking point with Young-Earth Creationists.

Your point about air sacs is really key. Humans did evolve in wet conditions as I point out in my blog. Before I had my children, I was extremely inspired by a book I read called "The Aquatic Ape" by Elaine Morgan. She outlines all of the attributes humans share with aquatic mammals. I was extremely inspired by Morgan's work and used my own children as guinea pigs. Both girls could float and propel themselves underwater and on their backs before they could walk.

You and I seem to have very similar views and are just a few degrees on either side of the dividing line of Darwin's theory. Although I am an evolutionist, I am not an atheist and I find that it is almost impossible to talk with secular scientists about the effects of religious traditions on the evolutionary process.

I would agree with your frustration with Young-Earthers and extend that frustration to anthropologists. At least Young-Earthers are usually civil.

I am still somewhat unclear on your view of the origin of H. Afarensis. Do you think archaic humans came from a completely separate line of descent that does not share a evolutionary branch with other primates or even hominids?

Kind regards,
Susan


Susan,

I am a creationist.  I believe that from "the beginning" God created humans in the divine image and fully human, and that humans and apes have always been separate species.  As far as I have been able to determine, finds labled "hominids" in evolutionary taxonomy represent different archaic human populations.
 
After almost 100 years of frantic searching, there remains no material evidence that humans and apes had a common ancestor.  This aspect of Darwin simply has not been proven. Until it is, I feel no compulsion to relent in my position. That's the empirical approach, afterall.

This doesn't mean that I reject a role for natural processes. These can be observed. I wonder why such observations must be forced into Neo-Darwinian interpretations. The air sacs being an example. Many features that Darwinians insist are evidence of evolution have other likely explanations. The morphology of the hyoid that suggests that A. afarensis had air sacks in the throat is not indicative of evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor. The same hyoid bone feature has been found in other archaic human populations as an adaption to aquaboreal environments. Similar hyoid structure appears in the Kebara Cave population of Israel that lived around 60,000 B.C.

Genesis tells us that God created in an orderly fashion over a period of time and according to a plan. It is the work of science to discover the order and the work of theologians and Bible scholars to discern the plan.  For Abraham's ancestors the order was perceived as fixed, though they recognized flux within the fixed boundaries. Their acute observation of the patterns in nature suggested a divine plan.

Are you familiar with the BioLogos Group? Their website might interest you. They are theistic evolutionists, mostly Evangelical Protestants. BioLogos sees evolution as the means by which God created life, in contrast to Atheistic Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism.

Personally, I think they try too hard to align Darwin with Genesis. Genesis isn't about the origin of the universe and life on Earth. It is about the origin of Messianic expectation among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors. Their focus on the evolutionary angle causes people to lose sight of this.

I too have found it nearly impossible to discuss the impact of religion on human advancement with secular or atheistic Darwinians. Religion simply does not fit into their Materialist worldview.

They are ignorant of ancient civilizations and dismiss the importance of this knowledge because in their evolutionary scheme, humans have evolved to a higher consciousness. Therefore the ancient past has little to teach us.

Materialists recite a litany of Dawkins' writings and his ignorance of ancient civilizations is shocking. When I bring up examples of how religion is the early foundation for science, materialists dismiss this.  Recently, I cited the example of how the trinity of pyramids of Giza, Saqqara and Abusir aligned to the temple of Horus at Heliopolis, and in reply, I was told that this could just as easily have been the work of aliens! 

Best wishes,

Alice


Alice


The Biologos group is heavy on the logos and light on the bio. They do try very hard but everything I read was conjecture. Genesis may be about Messianic expectation but its backdrop is an archaic world view that could provide invaluable insights. However humanity evolved, its story is told in the ethnography of religion. Why this resource is not being exploited is unfathomable to me.

Comparing the air sacs of humans to other indigenous primates places the ancestor of man and ape someplace in equatorial Africa. The air sac adaptation allowed this ancestor to adapt to ever wetter environments. While the ape branch became more specialized by knucklewalking, the human branch acquired more aquatic adaptations. Hairlessness, adipose fat distribution, deep diving reflex, ear ichthyosis, even upright walking allowed Pithecines to exploit the semi-aquatic ecosystem of tropical papyrus swamps. All primates are arboreal but the pithecine branch was apparently aquaboreal. Their forest ecosystem was cane.

The aquaboreal ecosystem that nurtured early man must have been coastal. The reason is our need for so much salt. Human blood contains .9% salt and is crucial for healthy brain development. Every bodily system down to the cellular level uses salt to function normally. It is especially important for pregnant women to get enough salt. Babies are able to tolerate much higher levels of salt than adults. This is why I think the aquaboreal home of early man was a brackish swamp. This brackish swamp also needed an inflow of fresh water. Babies need so much water! They spit up almost as much as they take in.

Susan



Susan,

Yes, the papyrus sedge was a food source among Abraham's Nilotic ancestors.  It was likely the main vegetable.  The soft lower part of the plant was baked, often with fish. Herodotus wrote about this, saying:

... they pull up from the fens the papyrus which grows every year, and the upper parts of it they cut off and turn to other uses, but that which is left below for about a cubit in length they eat or sell: and those who desire to have the papyrus at its very best bake it in an oven heated red-hot, and then eat it.  (Herodotus, Histories, Vol. 2)

The reeds were used to fuel fires, make sleeping mats, sandals, boats, and papyrus paper and its flowers were offered to the Virgin Queen Hathor at river shrines and temples. The papyrus reed and its flowers symbolized the Upper Nile. The sema (shown right), with its segments, represents the papyrus reed. It was the symbol for the Upper Nile and the sema-tawy, composed of lilies and papyrus reeds knotted around the hieroglyphic sign for union, was the symbol of the union of the Upper and Lower Nile regions. These regions were first united by Menes.


Related reading: Why Anthropologists Rejected the Aquatic Ape Theory; Genesis: Is it Really About Human Origins?; Biblical Anthropology is Scientific Study; Theories of Creation: An Overview