Distasteful...The Implications Of Evolution Before The Fall

Jay, you may not be an expert yourself, but the events you cite are accepted by the ‘field experts’ as the most likely to have occurred historically. (With the ‘out of Africa’ route through Yemen as 50/50 odds opposed to a Mediterranean shore route.) In any event, they provide the best starting point for judging how well the scientific and scriptural scenarios for the origins of humankind can be reconciled. The correlation between Climate Fluctuation and Brain Size is certainly provocative. However, as I have maintained in previous posts, Brain Size may be a kind of ‘red herring’ in that it may NOT be a good correlate with whatever distinguishes human behavior from animal behavior. I have previously cited cat scan evidence of a modern Frenchman’s brain showing that he is operating in today’s society with no more brain matter than possessed by Lucy, the famous Australopithecus afarensis.

Like Richard Dawkins (in "The Ancestor’s Tale) I am stuck on how the Homo sapiens brain (a perfect example of exaptation) could have become ‘programmed’ to become Mind. Nevertheless, I can come up with no better explanation–certainly none that better fits in with Christian Faith.
Al Leo

1 Like

Hi Mathew
You are in very good company when you admit to being confused by the plethora of scientific evidence for the Origin of Humankind. Much of the confusion arises from differences in word definitions–especially in what it means to be human. From an anthropological viewpoint, studying the evolution of primates, some important criteria are: bipedality, opposable thumbs, tool design and use, control of fire, etc. For the purpose of discussions of theology/religion, these are distractions at best and red herrings at worst. For theology/religion we can admit to animal roots (evolution), but we must insist that humans have a spiritual as well as a material nature; i.e., unlike animals, we have a soul that longs to know its Creator. Evidence for this will be found in human behavior and how it is vastly different from animal, instinctual behavior.

If you can find the time, it will be worthwhile for you to read two books by Ian Tattersall: “Becoming Human” and “Masters of the Planet”. They provide convincing evidence that Humankind suddenly appeared out of the species, Homo sapiens, in a Great Leap Forward.
Al Leo

Thank you Mr. Leo. It’s so good to be able to talk to some elders like this. And, I only say that because you appear about my dad’s age. He would be 64 today. I mean no disrespect. I’m 34. If you have kids, tell them I say to be grateful they still have you. Oh geeez, I’m crying now…

Hi Quincy
Isn’t your quote above a little contradictory? If there was never a point in history that humans were totally free from sin, where did they Fall from? In judging the creation of Adam as Good, does that necessarily mean Adam was sinless? Could Adam have been sinless but at least prone to sin?
Al Leo

Hi Mathew
I am going to be scolded for taking up so much Forum space, but I had to tell you that there is no finer complement you could pay an old geezer like me (in my 92nd yr.) than to imply he is an Elder passing on the wisdom of experience. Yes, I am a great-great grandfather, but sometimes I feel that the wisdom of experience is more difficult to pass on to those closer to you than to someone on this Forum. That is why I envy the parents who make the effort to home school their kids. I am sure that God has special blessings for @Christy and the other home schoolers on BioLogos. The future of this world would look awfully bleak without people like them.
Al Leo

2 Likes

But what about humans that aren’t French? :wink: :sweat_smile:

1 Like

This is what you’re describing, i.e. exponential growth. We happen to live on the far right side of the graph. Since your examples were technologies, I would relate them all to communication and information-sharing capabilities. Let’s call the “start” the point at which mankind (probably H. erectus) first began to speak words, maybe a million years ago. Draw a mark on the graph at 50,000 years ago, which is roughly when modern language appeared. Draw another mark 5,500 years ago, when writing was invented. Draw another mark at almost 600 years ago to represent the invention of the printing press, and we could follow that in rapid succession with electronic media 75-100 years ago, and the Internet 20-30 years ago.

Others have written great posts about how the “snowball” effect has affected human civilization, so I thought I might chime in on the reverse view. If you took a group of 25 year old computer programmers and plopped them down into the middle of the artic, how long would they survive? Could they build the necessary shelters, find fuel for fires, form weapons for hunting the necessary game, and other necessities of life in the arctic? Probably not. Could you even knap an arrow or spear head from flint?

I think we should also recognize just how smart our ancestors were, given the environments and conditions they were able to battle through with such primitive technology.

1 Like

@Jay313

I have long favored the view that the bottleneck was in Africa, and perhaps coincided with human “troops” taking refuge in a river ecology … spending much of their time in the water like some monkey troops do even today. Perhaps the river helped mitigate some of the climate issues…

1 Like

It is hard to pin down right now. The bottleneck study that I have seen places it among the “out of Africa” population, so it likely occurred either during the northward migration or shortly after their arrival in the Levant. What is interesting, as well, is the fact that they seem to have followed the East African Rift valley all the way north.

COINCIDENCE?? See Science (4 Aug. p.451 & 495) “Extreme weather drives rapid adaptation”; "Evolution, climate change, & extreme events"
Al Leo

1 Like

I clearly didn’t do myself enough service when I typed my last post… Yes, there had to be a time in which humans were free from sin because there had to be a time in which humans were held accountable by God but had not yet committed a sin. Though, knowing humans, I don’t think that would’ve lasted very long. The first sin would be essentially the “fall” we would talk about. But discounting that short time right before what I’ve decided is “the fall,” humans have always been sinful. Humans have always had a sin nature.

To be honest, I don’t think that much about this particular point of doctrine because I don’t see it as that important. What really matters is that today we are sinful, but we can find redemption in Christ. How we got there is secondary, and there’s a lot of Christian theology that interests me more. I will concede that perphaps my beliefs on some of these issues aren’t as thought out as I’d like them to be. I do have faith that someday I will gain the wisdom needed to see the full truth to these points of doctrine, but today is not that day, and today it is not that important. (Forgive me if this sounds belligerent… I’m trying to articulate my situation and beliefs as best as I can.
-Quincy

I believe this is true, because Homo sapiens is a product of evolution and their selfish genes makes them prone to sin–Not sinful per se.

I respectfully disagree, Quincy. To help me understand Christ’s role as Redeemer, saving me from the consequences of both personal and Original sin, I need to know as much as possible how sin actually did enter this world–a world that, according to Genesis, God declared as “Good”. I can accept as symbolic the temptation of Eve by the snake, but something more realistic might help me avoid sinning in today’s society.

I confess to being torn between two explanatory views: 1) The crucified Jesus as a Sacrificial Lamb certainly is an essential foundation for Christian Faith. 2) Christ (the Messiah or Cosmic Christ) is the aspect of our Creator that is needed to lead us humans to rise above our material (evolved) natures to embrace our spiritual natures and become co-creators with Him. The problem I have with view (1) is that the sacrifice is most often said to appease a wrathful God, and the God I have experienced in my life is loving and forgiving. There surely must be some way to bring both images–Jesus and Christ–into clear focus simultaneously. Its what I look forward to soon.
Al Leo

.

I have always viewed Original Sin as a superfluous part of Christianity for the simple fact that Jesus said everyone has sinned. Period. What I was taught was that Jesus was the only person without sin, not because of Adam and Eve but because of what each person had done in their own lives. For this reason, it kind of makes it pointless to worry about needing to be saved because of Original Sin since you need to be saved from your own sins.

And I will also tag on my usual disclaimer that I am an ex-Christian, so feel free to level any criticisms you see fit. These are just my recollections and understandings of Christian theology.

3 Likes

My take on your view 1 is Christ’s sacrifice was done in love in response to God’s demand for justice. Justice is not making sure the innocent are not punished but to make sure the guilty are justly punished. God doesn’t do this out of wrath but out of His nature of holiness. God in His love provided the redeemer He knew we would need. As usual way too few words to convey what I think on this subject.

@T_aquaticus I certainly am not inclined to 'level any criticism’ on your reasons for becoming an ex-Christian. If you have followed many of my posts, you realize that I do not hew to Orthodox Christianity. As I matured, I found that quite a bit of Catholic dogma was not intellectually appealing, although it served as a useful guide for the early stages of moral development. But it did not take a psychiatrist to tell me that the intellectual component was not all there was the the person I saw as Al Leo. I respond to ritual and symbolism, and, to an extent, respect Magisterium. To disown my Catholic heritage just because I could not fully embrace the literal truth of Mary’s bodily ascension into Heaven (for example) would be “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

I felt I owed it to myself to read about various beliefs and dogmas–both those favorable and unfavorable to Christianity. From Teilhard de Chardin I learned how evolution was compatible with Christianity and the history of the universe could be best understood if viewed in three phases: the Cosmosphere, the Biosphere, and the Noosphere. From him and fro Mathew Fox, I learned that the idea of Original Blessing was much more attractive–more intellectually satisfying–than Original Sin. From Richard Dawkins I realized that there was a great deal of Truth in the concept of the Selfish Gene, AND that modern humans CANNOT be merely the product of neo-Darwinian evolution (‘The Ancestors Tale’).

So I greatly appreciate the splendid work of the BioLogos team keeping this Forum operational, allowing me to spout out ideas that conflict somewhat with their core, evangelical beliefs. If God is happy with the enormous variety of beetles he created, he certainly won’t mind if we humans don’t behave as clones.
Al Leo

Just for the record, I was saying that you should feel free to criticize my descriptions of Christian theology. If I have anything wrong people should feel free to point it out.

But I do thank you for explaining your own position and personal journey. Life would indeed be boring if human belief and experience were the same for everyone.

Yes. He probably thinks it’s his life calling.

Bravo! Great answer!

@Celticroots

It was more so to attempt to pin down what you all believe (which, as I suspected, is rather varied.)

“Cardinal Bellarmine found Heliocentrism to be distasteful. I think you will find that truth is sometimes distasteful.”

As you too shall discover, ( @T_aquaticus )… Sometimes, I do feel like Galileo in these instances, going up against the generally accepted beliefs of this day. As I also like to point out: This is only one instance where a minority of people were correct, and the majority was wrong…Perhaps the same will eventually be said against Evolution?