Where do neanderthals and other now-extinct hominids fit in the whole sin and salvation picture? Were they part of the human family that Christ died to save? Do you think they were intelligent enough to be considered capable of sin, or were they just animals?
That's all for today. I need to get to the piles of laundry in my house before life starts spontaneously generating in them and take advantage of the break in the weather to finish raking all the leaves in my yard.
As always, thanks for reading.
I seem to be one of the few who believe that Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive belief systems. God has always brought his will to pass by scientific methods that we as humans can see, document and learn about.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but I would guess that early hominids would not be included as Children of Christ any more that my cat is. With the exception of possibly neanderthals, most anthopologists do not think that early hominids had the capability for reason or deep concept thinking as homo sapiens sapiens do. My cat is not an adulterer because she had kittens with at least two different toms. Neither can animals with limited cognitive capablity be included in the atonement.
Neanderthals on the other hand, may have had similar cognitive abilities as we have, although limited speech capablities. These assumptions are based only on what anthopologists theorize from looking at skulls, as (despite some dating experiences I have had) there are no neanterthals walking around to ask. Where do they fit in the Atonement? I am not sure, but to be fair, there is some unsurety in the anthropological society where they fit in today. Did they fall in to complete extinction (the more popular theory) or did they inter-breed with homo sapiens sapiens? I continue to watch and learn what science uncovers about them and other hominids.
Leah, answer me this: How did life begin? Or better yet, explain the evolution of adenine, one of the four bases that comprise DNA. Adenine is a complex nucleic acid that requires 11 enzymes that have to synthesize with each other in a very specific order to create adenine. How did this complex nucleic acid evolve? What were the intermediate uses of the first two enzymes when they combined? And then the new enzyme once the third combines? And so forth on up to the 10th? A slow progressive evolution of adenine would require functional enzymes with a purpose at each intermediate stage and then a gradual progression to the next more complicated stage.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you expect Christians to have all the answers when atheists do not as well. Both you and Ray admitted such on the last thread. You both said that you didn't know how it all got started.
I think that it's only fair that you can demand answers ONLY when you have all the answers yourself. Wouldn't you agree?
No, I don't agree. I would expect Christianity (or any religion) to have all the answers because it claims to have gotten its information from an omniscient God. Science ADMITS it doesn't have all the answers and that we could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't demanding an answer. I don't expect anyone could give a definite answer to this question. Just trying to provoke thought.
@Patrik: With that school of thought nobody could ask anyone any questions. This question obviously wasn't an attack, but just a question Leah had thought of before.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to be fair, nobody on Earth knows how the Universe started. Nobody. Not Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc. There are some guesses, but nobody knows.
I know this subject's already been covered but if you had all the answers what would be the purpose in demanding answers? I thought this post wasn't so much a search for an answer but an inquiry as to other people's theories since it's obvious we can only speculate the past.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to Patrik's question, or the one most based on scientific thought, is that time is required as well as a little bit of luck. I am not saying that there isn't another force involved, but, most scientists believe that nucleic acids and such were formed due to both high temperature reactions caused by lightning in the atmosphere which at the time was much more unstable and varied in its makeup and other natural phenomena in other suitable conditions. Also, there is the possibility of the introduction of foreign materials from comets (and the like) entering the atmosphere. That is not even taking into account random quantum appearances. And, that is why life has taken billions of years to develop into what we know today. Because, through a beautiful series of events that baffle the mind with their intricate complexities, billions upon billions of factors came together in a ways that life could exist. It should take a person's breath away to know how precious that makes the life we know to exist. We are made of the stuff of stars.
ReplyDeleteThe very materials that make up our sun and all of the twinkling lights we see in the night sky are related to us.Even the earth on which we stand is made of the same cosmic material that was shot forth at the beginning of things. We have that inside of us. How wonderful.
And to think that somewhere out there this same process may have also occurred or is just beginning to occur. It is beautiful.
I am not an atheist. I'm an agnostic, but, I have room for faith. I just am just not completely sure what that consists of, yet. To me, faith does not conflict with science nor do I think that humans would have the intelligence to fully appreciate or understand the matters of the divine, at least in our mortal coil. Perhaps a force set everything in motion and/or guided it along the way. Perhaps, one of the religions of the world is right and timelines are just off a bit and their teachings meant to help less advanced prior generations learn moral customs,histories and ways of life;but with the underlaying faith still valid. Maybe we are just connected by our humanity and that makes something larger, something separate from the physical world. Perhaps we are alone. Each man or woman an island.
Either way, the universe is so complex and so beautiful in all of the interdependent relationships it has with everything within it, I think it is silly of us not to want to delve deeper into its makeup. The search for our history and our future as residents in this universe does not take away from faith. It adds to it. I would think that if one is a believer to think of the chance that something created an organism so intricate and with so many possibilities it could only strengthen one's belief in that power.To study the sciences and physics would help to take one step closer to touching the divine.
How lucky we are to live and be able to question. Because through those questions, though we may not always find answers, we often find beauty. I think the real answer is that what we have is precious, no matter what our own individual viewpoints are. Out of all the atoms in the universe, a select few get to come together to form living things. How awesome is it that we get to be those select assemblages of star dust.
Sorry... I got way off topic. Haven't been sleeping much. Actually I don't know if I ever was on topic - oh well.
ReplyDelete@Patrik
ReplyDeleteWow Patrik, Interesting question you asked, though it is a little unfair to ask it of someone who doesn’t have a background in biology or organic chemistry. However bit of looking around led me to some interesting experiments looking into the origin of Adenine.
Fortunately for me I happened to know of some of these experiments before you asked the questions and knew how to look them up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment
The section under "Other experiments" will be of particular interest to your question.
I did take some time look at the citations to make sure they are reputable, and they look like they are.
Also Patrik by simply attributing something that you don’t understand to a god all you really have is a god of the gaps, and that gives you no real answers. On top of that you would have an ever shrinking god as things that were once attributed to him are explained by natural means. As an example the ancients believed that a rainbow was an act of god, but we now know that it is the simple consequence of light refraction. Like wise earth quakes had been also attributed gods or even the stirrings of big fish, but now we understand the process of plate tectonics and no longer attribute earth quakes or other natural disasters to an angry or malevolent deity.
Some good comments.
ReplyDeleteI echo what Sylvia said.
As far as a 'god of the gaps' I don't see it that way. It's more like: 'God did it' and we are trying to figure out 'How God did it'. Finding the how doesn't change the fact that God did it.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone from the sky at the height of their iniquities as the Bible records. Some mathematical computations, models, and theories later, we find evidence that a comet hit the earth nearby and the liquified crust created by the impact is what showered the cities with firey death. So now we believe we know the how and have good evidence to back up our theory but you have to still admit the possibility of Gods hand when you consider the origin of that comet. Knowing everything from the beginning to the end would make it easy to plan events like a comet strike at a specific time and place on a specific planet (with a specific mass comet moving at a specific speed impacting the earth at a specific angle to produce a spray of molten crust in a specific direction), billions and billions of years before it would actually happen. (A planet which btw spins rather quickly and orbits a star which orbits in its cluster around the galactic core which orbits with the astronomical group around the center of the universe. e.g. a hard target to hit if you need to launch your comet 10 billion years or so prior)
Knowing the how only makes the Truth of Gods divine planning that much more incredible.
@Joe
ReplyDeleteYou may not agree with what I said about a god of the gaps, but stating one thing was the cause of something when that original thing to make the cause didn’t have any evidence to support it’s existence you didn’t actually answer the of what was the cause because your clime was unsubstantiated.
We have of yet discovered many how things work, but we haven found an who, and if we want to base our understanding in what is actual it is wrong to assume a who when there is no evidence to give substance to the claim.
Oh wow, I just reread my last post and realized just how bad the grammar was.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for sounding harsh. Maybe “demand” was a wrong word choice. I didn’t think the question was an attack on Christians but I see how my word choice would imply that I thought that. Because Christians claim the Bible is the Word of God does that mean that God, by default, gave them all the knowledge that there was to be had? I don’t see why it should. Christianity is not about having all the answers to all of life’s mysterious but about how to be in a right relationship with God.
ReplyDeleteI am not suggesting that it is not ok to ask questions. I do not think that ignorance is bliss. We learn by asking questions. Science is an amazing thing. It gives us the ability to learn more about the world in which we live. I also do not believe Christianity to be incongruent with Science. The simple fact that we have the ability of cognizant thought and are able to think critically is amazing. In fact, the chances of us having the ability of conscious thought is momentously more difficult and statistically more improbable than the origin of life (of which there is no scientific answer), of which is itself many magnitudes more improbable than most people realize. That “gap” in the evolutionary process was bridged by luck, according to Richard Dawkins. Christians are accused of gap filling by Richard Dawkins (the god of the gaps is a term he uses in his book The God Delusion) and yet he fills gaps of knowledge with luck. Is that scientific? Is there a difference?
@XR4-IT: correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember reading elsewhere that the conditions simulating the early earth atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiment have since been refuted as were not really representing the actual conditions of the early earths atmosphere? There were a lot of assumptions made in the experiment about what the early earth’s atmosphere must have been like?
Here's an accessible crash course on the theory of the origin of life:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hulu.com/watch/63327/cosmos-one-voice-in-the-cosmic-fugue
As for the original question, it's an interesting one that had never occurred to me, even though I accepted evolution when I was still a religious believer. Had you asked me the question back then, I would probably have just said that God is just and merciful and will make everything work out justly in the end, and I wouldn't have worried too much about where to draw the cutoff line for intelligence and sinning capability. *shrugs*
Whether or not the Miller-Urey experiment was a precise representation of the specific conditions early in our planet's lifetime, the experiment demonstrates—at the very least—that the building blocks of life are easy enough to make with materials and conditions that are abundant throughout the universe.
ReplyDeleteThe experiment wasn't trying to say, "This is how it happened exactly, without a doubt." It was only trying to demonstrate how it's very easy for nucleotides and amino acids to arise from inert matter due to mindless, undirected processes.
An interesting post Leah...
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to add something to the question that Christians must answer. What about all of the millions who have lived on this earth AFTER the advent of Christianity and never heard the 'Word of God'? I speaking of more remote peoples, who by geographic reasons never come into contact with a Bible. Are they condemned to hell for not accepting gentle Jesus? These are the absurdities that made me start to question my faith.
As for the compatibility of religion and science, I'd disagree with some on this thread who say they can be reconciled. I don't believe this is possible. Science is the quest for truth, through rigorous examination and constant questioning. Religion is the acceptance of fantastic ideas with no evidence (at least physical/empirical evidence).
The universe is a beautiful place, yes. But we need to shake the paradigm that only a 'creator' can design beauty. I think science has given us a rudimentary understanding of very complex systems at work in the universe, which are breathtaking if you step back and observe.
There is no evidence of a creator, so we must assume one doesn't exist. Logic must be given precedence over emotion.
Some very thoughtful responses here. Thanks, everyone!
ReplyDelete@rwfrasier, yes, you were off topic, but you were so eloquent!
@Jim:
ReplyDeleteThe Church of Jesus Christ teaches that all men women and children will be exposed to the Gospel whether in this life or the next and every one of them will get the chance to accept vital ordinances for their salvation. A just God wouldn't leave any behind.
An interesting post Leah...
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to add something to the question that Christians must answer. What about all of the millions who have lived on this earth AFTER the advent of Christianity and never heard the 'Word of God'? I speaking of more remote peoples, who by geographic reasons never come into contact with a Bible. Are they condemned to hell for not accepting gentle Jesus? These are the absurdities that made me start to question my faith.
As for the compatibility of religion and science, I'd disagree with some on this thread who say they can be reconciled. I don't believe this is possible. Science is the quest for truth, through rigorous examination and constant questioning. Religion is the acceptance of fantastic ideas with no evidence (at least physical/empirical evidence).
The universe is a beautiful place, yes. But we need to shake the paradigm that only a 'creator' can design beauty. I think science has given us a rudimentary understanding of very complex systems at work in the universe, which are breathtaking if you step back and observe.
There is no evidence of a creator, so we must assume one doesn't exist. Logic must be given precedence over emotion.
Here's an accessible crash course on the theory of the origin of life:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hulu.com/watch/63327/cosmos-one-voice-in-the-cosmic-fugue
As for the original question, it's an interesting one that had never occurred to me, even though I accepted evolution when I was still a religious believer. Had you asked me the question back then, I would probably have just said that God is just and merciful and will make everything work out justly in the end, and I wouldn't have worried too much about where to draw the cutoff line for intelligence and sinning capability. *shrugs*
Some good comments.
ReplyDeleteI echo what Sylvia said.
As far as a 'god of the gaps' I don't see it that way. It's more like: 'God did it' and we are trying to figure out 'How God did it'. Finding the how doesn't change the fact that God did it.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone from the sky at the height of their iniquities as the Bible records. Some mathematical computations, models, and theories later, we find evidence that a comet hit the earth nearby and the liquified crust created by the impact is what showered the cities with firey death. So now we believe we know the how and have good evidence to back up our theory but you have to still admit the possibility of Gods hand when you consider the origin of that comet. Knowing everything from the beginning to the end would make it easy to plan events like a comet strike at a specific time and place on a specific planet (with a specific mass comet moving at a specific speed impacting the earth at a specific angle to produce a spray of molten crust in a specific direction), billions and billions of years before it would actually happen. (A planet which btw spins rather quickly and orbits a star which orbits in its cluster around the galactic core which orbits with the astronomical group around the center of the universe. e.g. a hard target to hit if you need to launch your comet 10 billion years or so prior)
Knowing the how only makes the Truth of Gods divine planning that much more incredible.
I seem to be one of the few who believe that Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive belief systems. God has always brought his will to pass by scientific methods that we as humans can see, document and learn about.
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but I would guess that early hominids would not be included as Children of Christ any more that my cat is. With the exception of possibly neanderthals, most anthopologists do not think that early hominids had the capability for reason or deep concept thinking as homo sapiens sapiens do. My cat is not an adulterer because she had kittens with at least two different toms. Neither can animals with limited cognitive capablity be included in the atonement.
Neanderthals on the other hand, may have had similar cognitive abilities as we have, although limited speech capablities. These assumptions are based only on what anthopologists theorize from looking at skulls, as (despite some dating experiences I have had) there are no neanterthals walking around to ask. Where do they fit in the Atonement? I am not sure, but to be fair, there is some unsurety in the anthropological society where they fit in today. Did they fall in to complete extinction (the more popular theory) or did they inter-breed with homo sapiens sapiens? I continue to watch and learn what science uncovers about them and other hominids.