What Just Happened Here?
As I am sure observers can tell, this is a parody of @DennisVenema’s argument against genealogical science used against his own position, and this parody makes a key point.
The Term “Human” is Ambiguous in the Distant Past. This is true in both theology and science; moreover, “human” is used differently in both theology and science. For this reason, references to “human,” “mankind,” and “humanity” in theology and science, when applied to the distant past, are hotly debated, unsettled, ambiguous, and ultimately misleading. When in dialogue with theology, ambiguity and theological weight of the term “human” creates avoidable confusion about what science does and does not say. Most importantly, in light of recent universal ancestry, there is nearly total freedom in mapping between theological “humans,” as we understand them today, and the findings of science.
I responded with examples where others had made these caveats.
It is well known, but it is not well appreciated. In this @BradKramer is correct. I may be the first person to insist…
When in dialogue with theology, ambiguity and theological weight of the term “human” creates avoidable confusion about what science does and does not say.
Why this Matters
In this good-natured parody of @DennisVenema’s argument against genealogical science, one can see that indiscriminate use of “human” can be easily used to create needless conflicts that do not necessarily exist. @DennisVenema is fond taking advantage of this to oppose genealogical science, and William Lane Craig falls into this trap more accidently. Wither by intention or error, it is just unhelpful to think “human” is a neutral term in these contexts.
Instead of manufactured objections, we should focus on actual objections that empty chair have presented.