Good day Antoine,
Let me report I’m now 1/5 of the way through your article yesterday and should finish it today or latest tomorrow. It’s more than 40 pages, after all. ; ) That said, since you replied in part to my question, let me pick that up in the meantime.
“the ongoing development of humanity (Homo sapiens at the present moment) does NOT reduce to Darwinian evolution. ”
Yes, we are agreed, though obviously 150+ years later, Darwin isn’t our main authority on this topic nowadays. “Human development does not reduce to evolution” is good advice to repeat.
It would seem that you are one step from being able to circumscribe “evolution” much more comprehensively than you do now. It seems from what I see here that “evolution” might be somehow "in control” of your philosophical palate, rather than being just one tool among many others, some of which are much more powerful even on the same “topics” that currently “evolution” is being used for. Forgive me for getting ahead of myself, as this isn’t a comment on your paper.
I’m not sure “homo sapiens” is the best term for who we are today. The classification has changed in the past. I find curious the alternative proposal of placing “human beings” under the taxonomic kingdom of “symbolia” (biosphere), but natural science classifications seem to have their own kind of force of inertia.
“We can today unambiguously distinguish which creature is human, and which is not. Anatomically there is today a clear difference between our species Homo sapiens and other animal species, even our “closest relatives”, chimps and bonobos.”
Fine & good.
“The more we go back into evolutionary history, the more the difference between Homo sapiens and other species fades away.”
Yes, pre-history does that. We should always keep in mind, however, that “pre-history” and “pre-human” is often an attractive distraction.
“I am interested in knowing when this difference became as distinct as it is today.”
Ok, so this sounds like a palaeological or ethological topic. Are you personally interested in studying palaeology or ethology, with a background in quantum physics, and philosophy? It does not sound like “cultural anthropology” is part of your theoretical range so far, or at least in a muted or only limited way. If there is significant gap between us, one feature of it is because I think closer to the language of culture than to the language of physics.
“I am interested to know when there is evidence for the sense of moral and legal accountability (in line with Genesis 9:5-6). The systematic study of evidence that allow me to answer this question comprehends fields as evolution of morality, legal systems, money, religion. This fields of study, together with that of evolutionary biology , sum up to what I call evolutionary science . And the answer I obtain to my question is: Not later than 5,300 BP, since Cuneiform writing unquestionably evidences sense of accountability.”
Unfortunately, that is not “all there is” to “the answer”, at least, not how I see things, and I don’t think your argument justifies the elevated use of “evolutionary science” (much more to say about this another time). You instead appear to be covering only a small portion of what it seems you think more largely you are trying to cover. This is part of what I consider the deception in taking an evolutionary universalist approach. It has a tendency to swallow up “fields as evolution of morality, legal systems, money, religion” under inaccurate generalities and “just so stories”. Using “evolutionary” thinking in those fields serves to re-create the “original sin” of the Garden of Eden translated into an academic theory – by removing the responsibility of the actor(s) for the “development” (shorter time span, teleological, intentional, internalist-orientation) they are committing upon the world.
“Like you I reject the attempt to explain revealed religion, let alone the statement that God made humankind in the image of God, merely on the basis of any evolutionary mechanism. But this said, I would like to stress that Dunbar and other representatives of evolutionary religious and moral studies contribute significantly to answer the question I am interested in, that is, the time when the universal revelation referred to in Genesis 9:3-6 was done.”
I am thankful we have agreement on the first sentence.
My curiosity with your approach so far comes from having found “good anthropologists” who are religious theists, instead of having always to turn for ideas to proselytizing atheist “anthropologists” like Harari, Diamond, Pinker or Dunbar. Why continue going to atheist anthropologists for guidance (e.g. re: ERS), given that it means you willingly cede the “terms of engagement” to that which the atheist anthropologist chooses? What if those terms aren’t the best ones for the Roman Catholic Church to use?
You started with “what the term is motivated by”. That was a very curious start to me (who is not a psychologist, but thinks most of the noise involved here features the social psychology of local evangelical churches, led by their pastors, who are the primary forces for maintaining YECism in the USA).
Gen 9:6 we also agree is very important. I would argue it is entirely unimportant, however, for the field of “physics”, while instead being key for anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, political sciences, psychology, etc. Do you claim Gen 9:6 is relevant for physics?
What both you and Mitchell seem in some ways to be trying to discuss already has a name, though you haven’t been using it in a “reflexive" theoretical way. The name is: extension. McLuhan introduced it in the 1960s, and elaborated it in the sense that: “Christ, after all, is the ultimate extension of man”. In the electronic-information era, consider “evolution” as a limited, naturalistic term, compared with “extension”, the latter which fits much more comfortably and suitably in discussions of purpose, meaning, origins, and value, than does “evolution” or “memetics” talk.
In short, what does “original sin” (and every sin hence) extend from? Not just an externalist evolutionary explanation or a quantum vacuum, right?