The Creation of Man
I heard on the radio this morning that some people believe Cain was the offspring of a mating between Eve and the Serpent, and was the first (evil) Jew, while the later offspring of Eve and Adam gave rise to the Christians. That got me to wondering what really happened, assuming that the Bible really contains an accurate description of the creation of the world.
Was Adam white? If he was, and Eve was cloned from his rib, then Eve was also white. So where did the black people come from? Where did the Chinese and all the other east Asian people come from? If they're descended from Adam and Eve, then you can't object to interracial marriage, because we're all one family. If they're not descended from Adam and Eve, where did they come from?
There's no mention of them in the creation story. Are they among the animals that were created before Adam? If so, they would be a different species. But the existence of so many fertile crosses between races suggests that we are all really one species.
Biblical tradition says we are all in fact one species. The human species, in fact every species, was reduced to one mating pair that survived on the Ark during the Flood. Each of the sons of Noah gave rise to a different race. How can that be? Can a white couple give birth to a black man?
Talking about gaps in the theory of evolution, this seemed to me to be a serious gap in the theory of creation. But then I found the answer on Christian Answers.net. Adam and Eve, having been created with the best possible combination of genes, were mixed race, so they had the capability to give rise to offspring of any race. How were the races separated so that each race lived in a different part of the world? Natural selection, of course - a borrowing from the theory of evolution.
Was Adam white? If he was, and Eve was cloned from his rib, then Eve was also white. So where did the black people come from? Where did the Chinese and all the other east Asian people come from? If they're descended from Adam and Eve, then you can't object to interracial marriage, because we're all one family. If they're not descended from Adam and Eve, where did they come from?
There's no mention of them in the creation story. Are they among the animals that were created before Adam? If so, they would be a different species. But the existence of so many fertile crosses between races suggests that we are all really one species.
Biblical tradition says we are all in fact one species. The human species, in fact every species, was reduced to one mating pair that survived on the Ark during the Flood. Each of the sons of Noah gave rise to a different race. How can that be? Can a white couple give birth to a black man?
Talking about gaps in the theory of evolution, this seemed to me to be a serious gap in the theory of creation. But then I found the answer on Christian Answers.net. Adam and Eve, having been created with the best possible combination of genes, were mixed race, so they had the capability to give rise to offspring of any race. How were the races separated so that each race lived in a different part of the world? Natural selection, of course - a borrowing from the theory of evolution.
posted by GrumbleGrouch at 11:27 AM
11 Comments:
Hey grumble grouch,
I hopped over here due to your posting at Frankenzilla on capitalism. There is nothing within 'microevolution', which I believe color variations within a species is, opposes the Christian doctrine of Providence, Creation, and the equality of the races. Personally, I haven't a clue what color Adam and Eve were, but the racists, which the radio show seemed to be discussing, want to claim that he is white. They even run with a very poor etymological study to arrive there. Anyway, the issue of various races poses no real threat to Christianity.
What it does pose a threat to, however, is the theory of evolution. If the white race had the ability, stronger (?), to enslave the black race, or any other race for that matter, why is it wrong? How can 'natural selection' tell us that the races are equal? Hofstader's "Social Darwinism in American Thought" as well as "From Darwin to Hitler".
Grace & Peace,
kdny
Ugh! My apologies for the poor spelling and grammar in the previous post. I shot it off too quickly and, unfortunately, you can't take them back in cyberspace.
The last sentence should end with "are worth reading" (the most glaring error, although I see others).
Sorry,
kdny
I agree with you that arguing the color of Adam's skin is not worthwhile here. Your main question was about the origin of right and wrong.
You might want to look at my recent post on Frankenzilla about the evolution of socioeconomic forms. Suppose, as I believe, that morality is not handed down, but evolves as an aspect of local culture. Humankind has an inborn capability to cooperate, but the scope of cooperation tends to be limited. Jesus, in the parable of the good Samaritan, argued that the scope of cooperation should at least include both Jews and Samaritans.
The ruling class in the U.S., on the other hand, pretends cooperation between the middle and wealthy classes, to the exclusion of the poor, but actually pits the wealthy class against both the middle and the poor. It has been said (I don't remember the source of the quotation) that no civilization can exist without a slave class.
The most telling pragmatic argument in favor of "diversity" is that the larger the pool of talent you draw from, the better your chance of getting the right stuff. It's an attractive argument for broad inclusive cooperation.
If you look at history, you don't find any long-term stable society in any form. Almost all, however, have class differences, with rich people prospering from the labor of poorer people. Many, however, pretend to be egalitarian. Look, for example, at the slave holders in the American Revolutionary period: they spoke of equality of all men, but they owned slaves. Jefferson, at least, was embarrassed. But my point is that within the scope of whatever segment of society you recognize as equals, you recognize a moral duty to cooperate.
All this, I repeat, is based on the evolutionary notion that morality is not handed down from a supreme being, but evolves with culture. And further, that those who become the rulers of each society have often tried to persuade the masses that this morality, especially as it favors the ruling class (e.g., divine right of kings), really was handed down from a supreme being.
And, no, I haven't looked into Hofstader's "Social Darwinism in American Thought" or "From Darwin to Hitler," and I don't know when I might have time to.
All this, I repeat, is based on the evolutionary notion that morality is not handed down from a supreme being, but evolves with culture.
O.k., so morality isn't fixed, but constantly in flux and evolving. So, the ethics of slavery are fine for 'all cultures' as are the ethics of genocide, etc. This ties into the equity discussion. Is what is equitable today going to be tomorrow? The evolutionist has to answer no or they stop evolving. Nature tells us nothing about morality.
I agree with your last post completely except for the conclusion: "Nature tells us nothing about morality." You might as well say that nature tells us nothing about disease, or intelligence, or ecology for that matter.
Your conclusion would be true if you reject what we just agreed to and insist that morality is absolute. If you agree that morality is relative, then not only does nature tell us everything about morality, but in fact morality is an aspect of nature.
The Bible attests to the evolution of morality: just compare the morality of the Old Testament with that of the New. So does politics: compare the morality of the Red States (individualism, self-reliance) with that of the Blue States (public welfare). Our President implicitly attested to the evolution of morality by coining the phrase "compassionate conservatism," as though conservatism (avoiding change) without that qualification would not be compassionate.
Morality does change, with time, place, class, belief, etc., and human nature can tell us a lot about how and why it changes and how a given morality would affect us.
I'll bet you really did not agree that morality is relative. You're just granting for the sake of argument that that's my position. I suppose your position is that morality is absolute, and that it's only human adherence to that ideal that evolves. I could agree to that disagreement.
I agree with your last post completely except for the conclusion: "Nature tells us nothing about morality." You might as well say that nature tells us nothing about disease, or intelligence, or ecology for that matter.
I don't believe nature does. Now, man interprets and analyzes information and draws conclusions, but to my knowledge we are the only ones doing this.
Your conclusion would be true if you reject what we just agreed to and insist that morality is absolute. If you agree that morality is relative, then not only does nature tell us everything about morality, but in fact morality is an aspect of nature.
Yes, I believe morality is absolute. Given evolution, there is no uniformity in nature, so there is no knowledge of nature and therefore no knowledge of morality. Nature, given naturalism, doesn't speak. It simply is.
The Bible attests to the evolution of morality: just compare the morality of the Old Testament with that of the New. So does politics: compare the morality of the Red States (individualism, self-reliance) with that of the Blue States (public welfare). Our President implicitly attested to the evolution of morality by coining the phrase "compassionate conservatism," as though conservatism (avoiding change) without that qualification would not be compassionate.
I think the Bible's morality is uniform, although the idea of progressive revelation needs to be brought into consideration. From my perspective, I completely understand why there are different moralities, but I can account for why. The President's sleight of hand is due to rhetoric and not morality.
Morality does change, with time, place, class, belief, etc., and human nature can tell us a lot about how and why it changes and how a given morality would affect us.
I disagree. Human nature, a ever changing idea, never tells us anything. Think of discussions where a person is constantly changing the definitions of the words they are using, it becomes an impossible conversation. So, why should we grasp the constantly changing (evolving) human nature?
I'll bet you really did not agree that morality is relative. You're just granting for the sake of argument that that's my position. I suppose your position is that morality is absolute, and that it's only human adherence to that ideal that evolves. I could agree to that disagreement.
:) Yup, that is what I am saying. Equity is the same from generation to generation, but, as you acknowledge at frankenstein's blog, we don't always improve.
Take care,
kdny
Well, in principle, I stand with Quartz Lefty in seeking the answers to some of those questions. But some of those questions are easily answered.
To begin with, you can't equate belief in the truth of the Bible with belief that the moon is made of green cheese or that golf balls are radioactive. Not all beliefs are equally valid. We all know that, but we have different ways of sorting out the good ones from the bad ones. Some people look to ancient authority for truth, others look to the consensus of trained observers. The point is, the moon being made of green cheese, or the radioactivity of golf balls, has neither ancient authorithy nor verified observation to back it up. Scientists and religious believers all agree that those beliefs are silly.
The charge of circular reasoning is not exactly valid either. We all rely on faith. Scientists rely on their faith that reasoning from verifiable observation leads to truth. If you ask them to justify that faith, the answers will also look like circular reasoning. In neither case is it circular. It's grounded in an axiom, an unproven, unprovable assumption, as to where truth comes from.
But the point about many holy books is valid. In science we have international agreement about where truth comes from, and as the observations get sorted out, we agree on what the truth is. In religion, we agree in principle, but not on the results, because we can never reconcile different holy books that come from different sources.
Now, in this world, with so many different people in it relying on different faiths for the source of truth, I ask, with Quartz Lefty, how do you know which truth is the real truth?
Hey Lefty,
If morality is absolute then whose do we use? You just said nature doesn't have any...oh...right...the Magical Holy Book. KDNY, are you even vaguely aware of the fact that not only is yours not the only Magical Holy Book out there, but some of the other Magical Holy Books are older and require less twisting and "interpretation" to have meaning? (I'm sure your response will be that your Magical Holy Book requires no "interpretation").
Yes, I am well aware that many claim to have Magical Holy Books, but I don't lay such a claim to the Bible. I believe it is the self-authenticating Word of YHWH. Others believe in impersonal laws that man can manipulate, beit for good or evil, but I believe in a personal God that has revealed Himself through the Holy, but unmagical, Bible.
So, we can begin with where you stand, your pou sto, and we can discuss the issues from there. I don't believe you have an epistemological or metaphysical place to stand, and I believe I can demonstrate the necessity of the Christian position. Within my worldview "nature" speaks, it pours forth speech, but I don't buy this on naturalist assumptions. If I'm a naturalist, then 'nature', whateve that may be, doesn't speak, it merely is.
Yes, I fully believe that Bible needs to be "interpreted". I am not a fundamentalist or modernist.
I guess if you are going to bring the large guy in the sky into it then we can start talking about the moon being made of green cheese or golf balls containing radioactive substances for all the logical sense you will be making. Once you start bringing the large guy in the sky into it, then you are talking about the Magical Holy Book. Ever hear of circular reasoning?
Yes, as Grumble pointed out, I fully confess that my beginning point is circular and everyones final authority is, otherwise it isn't the final authority. Now, the issue for me is, whose final authority can account for "logical sense"? You are seeking to lob rhetorical bombs, a rhetorical jihad of sorts, but as you begin to speak you are undermining your worldview and assumptions, plus arguing in a circular fashion, namely demonstrate to me what "logical sense" is without using "logical sense". It cannot be done. So, if you want to talk about circular reasoning, please know what you are talking about and how you yourself are using it.
So, if you want to set fire to strawmen and think you have done something of substance, then I won't bother you. I've learned that trying to discipline teenagers is in vain. If, however, you are willing to show some maturity and get into the philosophical nuts and bolts of our conflicting worldviews, then we can get to work.
Cheers,
kdny
Hey Grouch,
Now, in this world, with so many different people in it relying on different faiths for the source of truth, I ask, with Quartz Lefty, how do you know which truth is the real truth?
Via indirect argument. Because I believe we live in God's world, I believe all worldviews are demonstrabley false. We can examine the parade of views as they come down the pike, and seek to show how they undermine their own position. My argument is essentially this: Kant argued transcendentally for "time" & "space" & Aristotle sought to do the same for the "law of contradiction". A transcendental argument asks: what are the necessary preconditions for for an "event" - love, justice, empirical observation, etc. - or experience to be valid. I believe the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob is that the transcendental necessity for experience to be meaningful. We can claim that experience is not meaningful, and I will just take my ball and go home, b/c our game, this discussion and everything else, is absolutely pointless.
That's why I believe my position to be true.
I admit I haven't demonstrated this, but I wanted to give an outline of my thinking.
kdny
Well, seeing that you offer up a rather pedestrian post I think I will walk away or rather let you walk away with a little pride, b/c I realize you don't really want any. Look, if you can't stomp with the big dogs, then stay on the porch. Don't even bother to bark. Lower your head, tuck your tail, and know your place, even if you seek to hide behind a Russell or Nietsche. In this instance, just keep quiet. First, no, I am not a "Jew for Jesus" or any such group, as I am a full-blown Gentile, but a good ad hom may allow you to get out of fight you picked. I understand. I started a few in my day that I wish I wouldn't have. Second, this statement, "No Jew ever refers to his God that way" shows that you aren't even familiar with Moses, so need to discuss Judaism with you. Third, I'm glad you confess your "caveman" mentality. I thought we have "evolved" since this time, but if you are left clubbing women over the head then it goes to show that Grouch's faith in evolution is misplaced. Fourth, I'm glad to hear that you are a pragmatist. The only problem is that you have (not so) philosophically determined the ends without providing any justification for their pursuit. I'm glad to see you set yourself up as a god and provide meaning by fiat. I was expecting you to be on a teenage level, but you are still in infancy, kicking and screaming "me, me, me", yet seek to claim others are "humanocentric." I think that great philospher, or is he a hack, said, "It's either extremely arrogant or extremely, extremely childlike, on the three year old level." So, continue to chase your tale as you stay on the porch, but I hope you can make a distinction between your head and your tale, because you can't do it philosophically.
The only glimmer of hope you show is asking, why would God have an interest in you? I ask myself the same question, even the Psalmist asks the same question (Psalm 8). Yet, I know He does.
Sorry I haven't been able to post for a while.
Irony and sarcasm have no place in a serious rational discussion; they muddle the argument. Argumentum ad hominem certainly is inappropriate.
I won't post any more comments on this thread. Anyone who would like to pursue a discussion with grumblegrouch can email
angryold@angryoldman.us. If I choose to respond I will do so in my real persona.
Post a Comment
<< Home