Joshua, thanks for your ‘like’ to my reply to your post. It is a sign for me that we both may agree in the following Points:
-
It is crucial to distinguish between humanity (as the community of all free and accountable human beings with capacity to sin) and the biological species Homo sapiens or “anatomically modern humans”.
-
Today the difference between Homo sapiens (“modern humans”) and genetically near species (Chimps, Bonobos) is sharp because of the disappearance of intermediate varieties. Thus today being human can be definitely established through the belonging to Homo sapiens.
-
Nonetheless biologically it does not make sense to speak about the first Homo sapiens or “anatomically modern human”. Hence the biological category Homo sapiens or “modern humans” is only well-defined with relation to a population.
-
By contrast it makes sense to speak about the first human endowed by God with free will and therefore sharing accountability and capacity to sin.
-
To describe the origins of humanity principles like the sanctity of marriage are relevant.
These points may shed some light on the vivid and interesting debate you and others have carried in this other thread (Adam, Eve and Population Genetics: A Reply to Dr. Richard Buggs (Part 1) - #786). Dennis Venema in his claims:
seems inattentive to the distinction in Point 1 above, likely because he is reluctant to introduce “theology” into a supposedly “pure scientific” analysis. The problem is that ignoring this distinction, Dennis’s arguments against a common ancestor of “anatomically modern humans” become arguments against the origin of humanity through God’s intervention. This obviously provokes understandable reactions, not only on the part of OECs and YECs.
You, Richard Buggs (@RichardBuggs), and Steve Schaffner (@glipsnort ) deserve the merit of having showed that Dennis’s arguments are flawed to a certain extent. Nevertheless it may be appropriate that you (and possibly your companions) clarify that you are supportive of Point 3 above (If I remember well, you have declare this in other places). Note that it is precisely this Point 3 that makes it necessary to assume God’s intervention (Point 4) in order to define humanity as community of image bearers, called to be ruled by moral and law and not solely by Darwinian principles.
In summary, to discuss seriously and coherently the question of the origins of humanity one cannot ignore theology: In this respect Darwin’s Evolution is important but at least as important is Jesus Christ’s Revelation.