“Evolution assumes the human population was continuous with previous non-human hominids.”
Evolutionary theory doesn’t just assume this. There is a very large body of evidence supporting it.
“This supposes that it was not a single chain of ancestors, but numerous ancestors, simultaneously mutating similarly…”
I am not sure why you think that a bunch of people were having similar mutations simultaneously. There is no such implication or assumption. Occasionally the same mutation can occur twice in different individuals and be fixed two or more times (homoplasy,) but that is the exception and it would almost never occur simultaneously.
There is no necessity for anything like that in evolutionary theory, and thus not in a view that humanity (whether by a biological definition or a spiritual one) originated as a population. To use Y chromosome SNPs as an example, about 1% of observed SNPs occur at more than one place in the tree of haplogroups, and thus occurred independently.
If humanity originated as a population, and all the evidence indicates that it did, it was not a genetically uniform population. They all had similar capabilities, but there weren’t like a big group of monozygotic siblings. That’s what it takes to contain the collection of multiple alleles that present populations contain.
The topic is original humans… the group of “10,000 minimum”. Isn’t it? I thought you brought up the image of God as defining humanhood. Was I mistaken? Perhaps. Since you are now indicating that image of God is different than humanhood. Maybe that’s what you said all along. If they are different, then it would be reasonable to postulate that there could be people today who were not made in the image of God. Reasonable at least. Some people do not have that commission, and thus are not in the image of God. Not made nor created in the image of God. An interesting thought. Especially as to its implications. Wonder how the pre civil war slave owners would have like that concept.
Taking your last paragraph, you seem to imply that it is useless to talk about “image of God” since it does not determine “original”, nor presumably post-original humans. Okay, a mere diversion then. That’s okay
But not since Adam, you earlier said, can you separate humanity from image of God. On what do you base this?
In this sentence, you have stated the sum total that could be said. Extrapolating this to an “original” population, or to a time period in which this must have happened, or to an undistinguishable continuum, goes beyond this statement, and is an extrapolation, and not a simple conclusion.
The way in which an extrapolation such as these is stated has implications.
I stated that numerous ancestors (in this hypothesis) must have been mutating similarly and simultaneously (more or less). Why did I say that? Because if the “human”- defining mutations only happened in one or two individuals, then they would have been the originals. If no less than 10,000 were the originals (rather than their parents), then they must have arrived at that point more or less at the same time. It would be difficult to call an individual an original, if a different original had already existed five thousand years earlier. Otherwise we are all originals, since we are all unique.
This is very unfair - Craig is being taken out of context here. For Craig’s view see - YouTube. Perhaps Dennis will put himself forward for a debate with Craig on this subject. I have only seen Craig debate evolution once and that was against Templeton winner Alaya a few years ago. Craig won.
I brought up the fact that I don’t think Genesis is about the first humans (because science says the first humans were not a couple, and the group existed long before it is reasonable to assume we would have a surviving oral tradition of their history), so who or when the first humans were is irrelevant to my understanding of Genesis. I think Genesis is about the first image bearers in a series of image bearers that the narrative of Scripture concerns itself with. I don’t think image bearing has anything to do with an immortal soul or moral consciousness, I think it has to do with covenant relationship with God.
The view goes like this: With Adam and Eve, God decided all humans (Adam and Eve as the representative rulers) would be his image bearers or Eikons. I think it is a role we are created for and offered, not something inherent to our biological humanity. I think all humans from Adam and Eve on (in history, not genetically speaking) are broken, unfaithful Eikons. They have been given the opportunity and the calling to represent God to the world, but they fail. So they are created to be God’s image, but they are not in reality “imaging” him. Only in Christ, the first faithful human Eikon, do we all have the potential to fulfill our role as image bearers faithfully.
This interpretation has been advocated by a number of Bible scholars over the last decade or so, as they have gained a greater understanding of what the representatives of kings/gods (image bearers) meant in ANE cultures. I have found it very useful for making sense of the story of Scripture from Adam to Israel to Christ to the Church as a single coherent story of the mission of God on earth.
I think humans, as intelligent beings with the capacity to commune with God and with eternal souls have inherent worth. I just wouldn’t call that “the image of God.” I don’t think the revelation we have in Scripture speaks to when in history humans got souls or became capable of communion with God or whether God chose humans for relationship before the ones we know of in the revelation we’ve been given. What we have is enough for us to know what we need to know.
Okay Christy… this is somewhat confusing to me. To understand it, I have to restate it. What I see you saying is that first there were humans. Then after some time (thousands of years), God added his “created image” into people. This “image” has to do with a covenant relationship, not with the addition of a soul or moral consciousness. But this image is given to all humans(since Adam in history), none excepted. So not only Adam, but all other humans of the time received God’s image, or were transformed into God’s image, or received the covenant relationship which you said was the essence?
But they might have had souls before being the image… you imply. And image of God does not define humanity…
Well, if I understand what you are saying, I agree that only Christ images perfectly. I disagree that image of God could be separate from humanity. God created man in his image in a way not identified for any species of plant or animal. It is this that made communication with God possible. The image is cracked, bent, warped, and so does not “image” perfectly, but still shows something. Sometimes the image is so bad, that we don’t recognize God in it. Other times the image demonstrates certain aspects of God, such as his power, creativeness, innovation, faithfulness, consequences, love, joy, communication.
Yes, pretty much. Only I don’t think the image of God is something God “put into” people. I think it is a calling, or a purpose, or a destiny. It is what humans were created for, not what they were created as. All humans have this destiny as their potential and purpose.
I agree that God created humans special and for relationship with himself. I just wouldn’t call human specialness “the image of God” though I know I am in the minority, and that is how I would interpret it when I hear other people talking about it.
@Christy@JohnZ Just how 'being human’ and ‘being the image of God’ are related has turned into a worthwhile discussion, but the latter phrase is clearly a theological concept and therefore the term, human, must be defined in terms of behavior not in terms of genome. Alfred Wallace, Ian Tattersall, Simon Morris, Jared Diamond, and even Richard Dawkins agree that Darwinian evolution alone cannot explain the symbolic consciousness that makes humankind unique. This was acquired suddenly–not as a result of selective pressure. So, in the following quote: " *first there were humans. Then after some time (thousands of years), God added his “created image” into people" the word human should refer to archaic Homo sapiens and not the humanity we would accept today. True humanity is reserved for the word, people, who, as the quote indicated, have been given the opportunity to become His image bearers. It seems to me that the Covenant referred to in Scripture can be seen as foreknowledge of what science has recently confirmed.
As Christians we believe that our God is a God of Love. In the animal world–created through Darwinian evolution–there is little evidence of true love and compassion. Perhaps God seeks to introduce these into His creation and has given the ‘programmed’ Homo sapiens the challenge to do so (Covenant?) That may be what humans were created for.
Al Leo
@aleo
Al, so people=true humans, and even though archaic homo sapiens were also human in some sense, they were not fully human in the sense we use the word today? Or was that what you were disagreeing with?
Do you think “humanity” is a theologically/philosophically defined concept too, or are you saying that science/archaeology can pinpoint the transition from archaic homo sapiens to “humanity” through objective observations of behavior?
Christy, I think Tattersall in “Becoming Human” gives the most credible evidence that the Cro-Magnons were the first ‘true humans’. They spent a great amount of effort on grave goods, preparing loved ones for a ‘next life’. Their cave paintings were not merely accurate representations of what they observed, but, as today’s artists attest, they are partly symbolic. Certainly the sculpture of the human with a lion’s head was meant to symbolize something that we can only guess at. Archeologist have found Neanderthal burials that showed some care (but probably not flowers), and evidence that some badly injured family members were cared for long after they could ‘carry their weight’ productively. But, overall, Tattersall, Morris, and even Dawkins see a relatively swift transition from pre-human to human.
Al Leo
TheOx - Dennis is not engaging in an extended interaction with William Lane Craig. The argument that Dennis is engaging with, is not one from Craig, but a straw man concocted by Dennis himself. I understand that Dennis is not a philosopher or a theologian and the nuances of philosophical/theological argument are probably above him. However the caricature of Craig’s thought in this area seems to be one directed more by deliberate intend rather than honest misinterpretation, especially given the fact that Craig’s argument is not that difficult. A very brief discussion by Craig is here - YouTube. Completely removed from anything that Dennis attributes to Craig in the above article.
If you listen to the entire podcast, you’ll see that nothing I’ve written here is inconsistent with what Craig says - indeed, Craig refers his listeners in that podcast to the resources I’ve linked to in this piece. I’ve also quoted Craig extensively to allow him to speak for himself wherever possible.
However, if after reading those pieces through you still feel I am somehow misrepresenting Craig’s views, please feel free to elaborate how you see me doing so.
When God created man in his image, he made him from dust and then breathed life into him. If this represents evolutionary process, which it certainly does not appear to do, then at least if this has any significance, what it means is man is drastically and dramatically different from non-human, including the point that non-human is dead, at least comparatively speaking. This seems to refer to “creation” not morphing, of man. And thus, even if man’s body evolved from non-man, what was there previously, was not man before God breathed life into him. Scripture does not indicate a “calling”, but rather indicates the breath of life, breathed by God himself. This at the least led to communication with God, but also to an imaging or imitation of many of the characteristics of God, such as creation, communication, love, grace, mercy, consequences, justice, prophecy, …
Maybe. I’m not convinced we’re meant to take the account so literally. No matter what you do with it, it’s an interpretation, and interpretations can be wrong.
If you are skeptical of evolution, it’s a lot easier to take your approach than if you find it pretty convincing. Personally, I think it’s all or nothing with the ex nilho view. It doesn’t make sense to me to try to make the Genesis account describe evolutionary history and the dawn of man in a concordist way. A few generations later people are living in cities and building ziggaruts and speaking multiple languages. If Adam was the first homo sapiens, that rapid advancement doesn’t square with archaeology. I think a literal view makes sense (though it denies science and archaeology) and a non-concordist, non-literal view makes sense. John Walton’s functional creation /material creation distinction has a lot of explanatory power for me.
If you go totally literal you do have the problem of Cain going off to settle where he was afraid other people would kill him. In, Genesis 4:26, when talking about Seth we have, “Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.” That implies to me that there were existing people groups besides Adam’s immediate offspring. And what do you do with the Sons of God hooking up with the beautiful women and creating giants who were the fathers of heroes in Genesis 6? (That doesn’t strike you as a bit mythologized?)
Genesis 1:26-30 describes humanity’s calling to bear God’s image and rule his creation.
I find so often people bringing up what I would call false conundrums. It seems to me this is at least partly because these false conundrums have not been well examined. I don’t have a problem with Cain going off to settle where he was afraid others would kill him. First, the location he went to was not the issue; the people who he feared could have come from anywhere (he may have gone there to escape them), and he could be referring to people there presently, or even people who he would meet in the future (revenge can take a long time - years).
Of course, there were different groups. If you read Genesis 4, you find Cain’s descendants identified. Then Seth and his son (and probably more). Again, a non-issue, but it seems that men began calling on the Lord was tied to Seth being born and living, which kind of makes sense, doesn’t it.
The sons of God marrying the daughters of men, having children who were “mighty”… it seems, highlighted at the time of Noah. I don’t know… but its hard to mythologize it, since these mighty men who were descendants were real, not imaginary. So we only speculate a bit, but perhaps those who followed God (descendants of Seth), still married women (descendants of Cain) who likely did not. Perhaps this created some hybridization which made these mighty men somewhat unusual. But who knows. Yet this is as tenable as anything else.
Giants also existed after the flood, so it would not be improbable that they existed before the flood.
All in all, I don’t see the problems.
But you must keep in mind that “going totally literal” does not mean that similies and metaphorical words cannot be used. I certainly believe figures of speech are being used. For example, “sons of God”, which in the new testament is also used for believers. For example, the “sun governed by day” not meaning a dictatorship or elected democracy, nor meaning that the sun was a god. For example, the expanse or “dome” of the sky … dome not being meant as a literal molten upside dome, but rather as a concept similar to the way we might use “the ball of the sun” which would not imply us playing catch with it.
Well, I’m late to this discussion, but have one simple question for Dennis Venema.
Dennis says that “Craig very much feels that genetic monogenesis is important” and positions himself against this. I’m sure Craig believes it too, in addition to ‘feeling’ it.
Does this mean that Dennis affirms, supports, and/or promotes ‘genetic polygenism’ instead? See The Problem with Polygenism.
In the past, Dennis has not answered this fundamental and important question. But perhaps he will now indeed affirm, support and/or promote ‘theological monogenism’, while also defending ‘genetic polygenism.’ It would be unusual, but a kind of safety exit for him. Otherwise, faulting a person for holding to ‘monogenesis’ would seem empty if no other alternative were on offer.
One of the best papers I can suggest on the topic can be found here.
“The biological species is the population of interbreeding individuals. The philosophical species is the rational animal, i.e., a natural kind characterized by the capacity for conceptual thought, judgment, reasoning, and free choice. …The theological species is, extensionally, the collection of individuals that have an eternal destiny.”
The question for Dennis is simple; if he doesn’t support monogenism, which is what it sounds like, then does he support polygenism instead? Putting the burden on me to define it first is not sufficient because if he has read up on monogenism vs. polygenism, which he likely has, then it is for his definition of polygenism that I’m asking and still haven’t seen at BioLogos. Which kind of ‘genism’ (genesis) does Dennis believe in, affirm and promote?
