But evolution still has to arrive at what we call a human being, and if we are made in the physical image of Christ then evolution has to at least teleological, it has to end up with humans sharing 99.98% of DNA. The beginnings aren’t really relevant, the relevant point is the DNA at the time of Christ. So the DNA of Christ is determined by evolution but if we are made in the physical/biological image of Christ then evolution is determined by that image. That makes it a chicken v egg situation where the egg is determined by the chicken but the chicken is determined by the egg.
Throw God’s omnitemporallity into the mix and decide ‘which came first’. 
We could talk about logical order though.
“What we call a human being” cannot be established by mere evolutionary-biological criteria: In biology there is no imperative for introducing the category of species. It is the prohibition of homicide we carry “written in our hearts” that has motivated us to distinguish between the human species and other lifeforms. And thereafter to define other species to classify and explain the animal world.
We first establish which creatures are human beings and which creatures are not human. And only thereafter we define human and non-human DNA!
In other words, it is important to acknowledge that:
Evolution rests on an assumption that evolution itself cannot guarantee , i.e.: the internal commitment to the principle that humans shall not kill other humans but are allowed to use animals for food. This principle is the basis for assigning rights coherently, and the internal commitment to it is “the real origin of species”.
As far as one shares this assumption, then the scientific attitude is that evolution worked the way it worked to bring about the conditions that make it possible to implement this moral principle. In particular, evolution produced the disappearance of a large number of intermediate varieties to produce the sharp distinction between humans and animals we have today, so that it is possible to clearly establish which creature is human and which is not. The distinct species we have today did not originate only by means of natural selection: it was rather by means of natural deletion that evolution brought about these distinct species, and thereby laid the groundwork for assigning rights.
So far there is no circular reasoning here.
The “circular reasoning” would be to claim that “evolution has to arrive at what we call a human being, because what we call a human being is that at what evolution arrives”. And I “smell” that your accusers are using this type of “reasoning”.
But there is more:
Evolutionary psychology suggests that the internal commitment preventing humans to kill other humans enacts behavioral mechanisms required in order humans can live in big communities. Therefore, it is fitting to assume that these mechanisms appeared in the Neolithic, as this is the moment when the first big cities appear.
And Evolutionary psychology suggests furthermore that such a internal commitment would not have worked if it had rested only upon the fear of being “caught”. It rather comes from the belief that humans are responsible toward some High God, the characteristic belief of so called “doctrinal religions”. This belief was crucial for humanity to develop to the civilized urbane stage we observe today.
At this point noting speaks against unfolding the following theological reasoning:
Why the universal prohibition of homicide by God?
In Genesis 9:6 we are told:
“For God made humankind in the image of God”.
Furthermore, we are told by Scripture:
-
“The Word became flesh” (John 1:14).
-
Jesus Christ “is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn over all creation”. (Colossians 1:15).
-
“so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” (Romans 12:5).
-
Jesus Christ is “the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world” (Revelation 13:8).
If we put together what we know from Evolution and what Scripture tells us, then the “logical order” seems to be:
God decided from all eternity the incarnation of his Son, to the aim of making it possible that creatures share divine eternal life.
Then God from all eternity conceived the body for his Son, and thereby defined the human body.
Then through evolution God formed the human body in the image of his Son’s body, as a distinct species sharply separated from other animal species.
At some time in the Neolithic, God made the first humans “in the image of God”, i.e.: ordered them to share divine eternal life, and called them to live on earth respecting each other.
And sometime later (about 2000 BP) the Son of God, Jesus Christ, appeared on earth sharing a human body, i.e.: the body God had prepared from all eternity for his Son.
Strictly speaking, the DNA of Christ is primarily determined by the fact that it is the DNA of Christ’s body, that defines also the human body. Christ’s DNA was the means by which Evolution formed Christ’s body (the body God has prepared for his Son from all eternity).
All species have that prohibition to a large degree, and where there are exceptions humans share them – it was not that long ago that the “other” was not regarded as fully human, which tells us that the prohibition in our hearts isn’t all that strong.
That’s just mysticism, really; when we’re talking about evolution it’s the DNA that counts. Measuring by a prohibition “written in our hearts” isn’t actually useful because it is a weak prohibition that only applies to those we perceive as part of our group.
Evolution doesn’t require any such assumption, it only requires biology. Most humans who have died from other than natural causes have, after all, been killed by other humans. We are very much – like the dogs who bonded with us long ago – pack animals, and have always regarded humans not of our pack as legitimate targets for slaughter. That’s easily checked by perusing discussions of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where many people, Christians included, advocate for killing them all as a proper course of action (despite the fact that vert few, if any, Russian soldiers have any actual wish to be in Ukraine).
Assigning rights applied only to one’s own pack, an attitude which still prevails among much of humanity. Evolution had nothing to do with changing that, the change comes only from the expansion of the pack to include more than just the people who one knows by name. The pack attitude can be found among anti-gun liberals who think it would be just fine to kill all those who own guns.
So do all the other mammalian species have a belief in responsibility towards some High God? Our reticence in killing other humans is no stronger than that held by other species towards their own.
So evolution in your view is teleological, it has an aim point: the DNA that makes a body human was determined beforehand and evolution had to end up there. This means that God defined the body of the Son with all the detritus and messiness that one would expect from a haphazard process fed by sloppy changes.
This leaves the question of why God would design a body for the Son that gives all the appearance of being the result of a sloppy process including some very obvious inefficiencies. Human bodies aren’t all that great in terms of engineering.
1 Like
Nonetheless, in biology there is no imperative for introducing the category of species!
We introduce it first of all to distinguish between humans and non-humans in our daily life:
The motivation for distinguishing is the will to assigning rights coherently, i.e.: by means of the principle that humans shall not kill other humans but are allowed to use animals for food, the foundation of law.
The observable basis for distinguishing is the anatomical difference between the human body and the bodies of non-human animals we observe today. This difference establishes the standard calibration to define what is human. And, as we are told by evolutionary science, this difference is the same as it was at the time of Jesus Christ (2,000 BP), and when God made the first humans in “the image of God” sometime during the Neolithic (< 12,000 BP).
We can establish that some DNA is human only because we compare it with a traceable reference-standard DNA, and to establish this standard we have removed some cells from a body we know is human without having to examine its DNA.
Evolution, like any science done by humans, takes implicitly humans as axiom. In any science based on observation or mathematical reasoning (quantum physics, cosmology, mathematics) you cannot escape “the anthropic principle” at the end of the day.
Evolution, like science, is founded on assumptions that science itself cannot found.
Not in terms of biology – biology doesn’t care about rights.
That’s the only one of your three that makes any sense.
1 Like
As a matter of fact, we humans have achieved to live in big cities in cramped conditions, under strong psychological stress.
Other mammalian species have not achieved such a thing.
This demonstrates that “our belief in responsibility towards some High God” is an archetype deep-rooted in our collective unconscious, so that “our reticence in killing other humans” is quite strong and, in general, works pretty well!
Matthew 1:1 and 1:7:
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
….
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
It looks like God has no problem in designing a body for the Son as being the result of a horrible sin of David, a sin that involves murdering a loyal friend and servant after having perpetrated adultery with his wife!
In comparison to this, other “sloppiness” and “inefficiencies” are just peanuts, aren’t they!
1 Like
this is an interesting statement…do you think that perhaps our emotions may be a means of determining write and wrong even in a world where man has been corrupted by sin and may not even know it or of Gods law?
I recognize that this is a theological precipice for YECism…it could support the claim that primitive man is not subject to the wages of sin is death in judgment. However, this is another reason why i take issue with the claim that we are living under the new covenant. We know that the apostle says even Abraham was saved by faith in the grace of God.
If primitive man could sin, and God cannot accept sinful beings in his kingdom because even their physical presence is an abomination…then there would be little chance of primitive man receiving salvation as he didnt have the capacity to repent. His consciousness was not one of that kind of ability to reason early on. taht suggests that they (primitive man) were an experiment gone wrong and God stepped in to give them better brains in order to resolve that stuff up (cue adam and Eve in the garden). Strange thing from an all-knowing, omnipotent God i would think.
But as with many mammals, that reticence only applies to members of our pack. If we don’t think we’re all part of the same pack, cities become battlegrounds – as illustrated by gang warfare, where members of other gangs aren’t really perceived as human.
1 Like
Emotions do not tell what is right or wrong. Evil behavior may provoke strong emotions in others but so may many other matters that are not sin.
In most people, our conscience tells that some types of behaviors are wrong. Even that is not a fully reliable indicator because the conscience may grow numb or become twisted because of the feedback we get from our environment. Anyhow, I believe that most people in the world have some kind of conscience telling that certain kind of behaviors are wrong. I assume what Paul wrote in Romans 2:14-16 speaks about this.
A more detailed understanding of what is the will of God can only come through teachings that are inspired by God Himself (Holy Spirit). Biblical scriptures are the most reliable source I know.
If someone acts against the will of God without knowing or understanding, he/she will be treated in a less harsh way than a person that acts against the will of God knowingly. It is a widespread procedure in courts around the globe that a person without understanding is handled in a different manner than a person who knowingly breaks the laws. I leave the judgement of primitive men to the hands of God but I assume He takes into account how much understanding an individual has.
2 Likes
I fully agree with you!
In fact, one can consider that Genesis 9:3,5-6, refers to a universal revelation, sort of an archetype written in the collective unconscious of humanity, telling that humans shall not kill other humans, because God made humankind in the image of God, but they can use animals for food.
And as evolutionary psychology suggests, this archetype brought along “the centrepiece of the Neolithic”: “The invention of mechanisms that allowed people to live together in cramped conditions without killing each other”, and so laid the ground for urbane civilizations.
I think you still underrate the aspect of pack behavior: the essential requirement for living together wasn’t technological but being able to expand our concept of who is in our pack.
People react to how Israel was supposed to wipe out entire cities or tribes, but we wouldn’t have that reaction so much if we understood how other ‘packs’ weren’t regarded as really human; they were “other” and since they were “not us” then they weren’t people. We also react badly to the idea of slavery, but back then it was just logical: those who got conquered weren’t regarded as really people by the conquerors, so it was just good management to use them for labor.
The modern mantras ‘Trust your feelings’, ‘Follow your heart’, ‘If it feels good, it must be right’ and ‘Do what works best for you’ are all cut from the same decayed landscaping cloth. Consciences can be misled and seared.1
1 Like
Years ago after a very good friend was killed when he fell asleep at the wheel on an interstate, which was just one thing too many and kicked me into a totally dead state and all I could pray was “I don’t know what to pray”, after sitting there silently and blank of mind, these words came to me:
“Lord, teach me to follow my heart, but oh! teach my heart to follow You.”
That carried me through some rather dark periods.
2 Likes
“Do I believe? Help me to believe!”
“I believe, help my unbelief!”
“Do I love you, Lord? Help me to love you!”
“I love you, Lord, help me to love you more!”
Never encountered it.
(Emphasis in the quote by me).
By “fallen state” I mean the state after the Fall, which is “flawed” by death, illness and the pursuit of selfish interests (concupiscence). And you agree that
By this “Sure” you are backing the main assumption of my theological-biological explanation.
Now, I would like to highlight another interesting aspect of this explanation:
Under accurate scrutiny, even the proposal of a “genetic descent” from a single couple “Adam and Eve” appears to be equivalent to my explanation:
Indeed, the “Adam and Eve” model is motivated by the wish to ensure that “the state of original sin” is a consequence of the first sin by “Adam and Eve”, and becomes transmitted by means of natural reproduction from “Adam and Eve onwards” to all human generations.
But this means to acknowledge that “the state of original sin” is transmitted concomitantly to DNA replication, and therefore is somewhat encoded in the human DNA.
Now, “the state of original sin” is basically the state of being submitted to the conditions of illness, death, and concupiscence.
So, the model of “the genetic Adam and Eve” amounts to claim that the conditions of death, illness and concupiscence are encoded in the human DNA as a consequence of the first human sin.
But as we know from evolutionary science these conditions are the basic mechanisms ruling the whole evolution.
Therefore, the state the descendants from “Adam and Eve” become transmitted is exactly the same as the state the descendants from any other Homo sapiens couple contemporary of “Adam and Eve” become transmitted.
So, from the biological perspective, if there is transmission of “the state of original sin” from “Adam and Eve”, then there is transmission of the “state of original sin” from any other couple of Homo sapiens contemporary of “Adam and Eve”.
In conclusion, to ensure the propagation of “the state of original sin” it is necessary to invoke a first sinner, but there is no necessity of invoking that we are all genetically or genealogically descended from a single couple of sinners: If there is transmission, the transmission happens all the same from any couple of Homo sapiens living on earth after the first sin.