Evolution science or reality?

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Vern Humphrey,

You write, “I tend to favor the biological definition first because it is more easily defined, not because I want to draw a philosophical distinction between Neandarthals and modern humans.”

I can see your point since we are so used to thinking of the Neanderthals as looking different and being different from the Cro-Magnons and ourselves. Still, as I indicated in an earlier posting the problem with the biological species concept is that it is really a mess. The overall situation is summed up by vertebrate paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson by saying, “No precise and generally acceptable definition of a species has yet been achieved.” See p. 3 of my Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003).

The problem with all biological species notions is that they are based upon what Aristotle calls “accidental” qualities, such as morphology, reproductive isolation, or genetics. None of these strike to the essence of any species. Fr. Raymond J. Nogar, in his The Wisdom of Evolution (1963) tries to “define” the common house cat by qualities such as the basic attributes of self-development and sensation, and the less basic attributes such as having a digestive tract, spinal cord, skull, claws, teeth, and so forth. (See Origin of the Human Species, pp. 32-33.) The problem is that the “basic” qualities of self-development and sensation are shared by all animals, while the less basic attributes may sound applicable to the house cat alone – but have probative force only if we accept that the house cat is actually a distinct natural species! I realize there are other ways of trying to define a biological species, but Simpson knows whereof he speaks. Recall also that for Darwin, there is actually no such thing as species, only groups of similar individuals gradually “morphing” into less similar individuals.

That is why I am more comfortable dealing in terms of the philosophical natural species, even though I would agree that it might be dangerous to confuse a mouse with an elephant, despite them being in the same philosophical natural species!

Dr. Bonnette

 

[dcdurel]

Zeke2517:

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about my faith in god and the theory of evolution. While evolution has certain aspects that seem logical, I try to stand by my belief in god.

There is nothing in Catholic Church teaching that is contrary to evolution guided by God.

Michael Behe also writes
"In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think “evolution occurred, but was guided by God.”
The “Scott” he was writing to was **Eugenie C. Scott **is an anti-intelligent design evolutionist, who admits that 40% of scientists do NOT believe in an evolution by chance.

Thus, even 40% of scientists believe that evolution was guided by God. In other words, 40% of scientists do NOT believe in an evolution by chance without intervention by God, such as Darwinian evolution proposes.

This fact is seldom made public by those who promote evolution by chance alone.
Even Francis Crick who helped discover the sctructure of DNA in 1981 published his version of the origin of life which proposed that it began when micro-organisms from another planet were dropped here by a spaceship sent to Earth from a higher civilisation.
He realized that cells were to complex to have originated from chemicals by chance. That was back in 1981.

Today, since we have learned more and more about the amazing complexity of the simplest cell, extremely few knowledgable biologists actually think life could have developed from chemicals by chance any more. The simplest cells are so extremely, extremely complex it is virtually impossible to even conceive of such an event. If anyone really believes such a thing is possilbe please study even a little on the complexity of the simplest living cell.

 

[mongladz]

I still prefer that I was created and not an offspring of a monkey. This doen’t make me confused either, so its a matter of choice.

Peace!

mongladz

 

[buffalo]

PhilVaz:

rossum << You are right in that the scientific evidence to back up evolution is overwhelming. >>

dcdurel << This is hardly true. Virtually no knowledgable biologist really believes that life “evolved from chemicals” any more. >>

Common descent not origin of life:

“Common descent is a general descriptive theory that proposes to explain the origins of living organisms…Because it is so well supported scientifically, macroevolution is often called the ‘fact of evolution’ by biologists…the evidence and the conclusion are independent of any specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. This is why scientists call universal common descent the ‘fact of evolution.’” (from Theobald’s Evidences, Nov 2002 summary)

“Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…” (American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society 2001 PDF Evolution and the Fossil Record)

“Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry…There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination.” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

“…there has been a confusion, partly deliberate, of the fact that organisms have evolved with theories about the detailed mechanics of the process. The facts of evolution are clear and are not disputed by any serious scientific worker…To deny evolution is to deny physics, chemistry, and astronomy, as well as biology.” (Richard Lewontin, March 1982, Introduction to Scientists Confront Creationism [W.W. Norton, 1983] )

“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true…” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

“While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (From the International Theological Commission, headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, document published July 2004)

Phil P

Life on Earth ’unlikely to have emerged in volcanic springs’

 

[buffalo]

Liberian:

Zeke,

There is nothing that I know of in the Bible that contradicts the idea that God took a few billion years and the process of evolution to create hominids and then one morning breathed a human soul into one of them.

If you want something that sounds unlikely, look at the Big Bang theory. I was explaining it one evening to my ten-year-old daughter and after about ten minutes of this she started laughing and said, “Do you really expect me to believe this?” The only reason it sounds plausible to the average person is because it has been repeated to him by authority figures so many times.

• Liberian

**DID WOMAN EVOLVE FROM THE BEASTS?
A DEFENSE OF TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

** Introduction

     The       purpose of this paper is to defend a doctrinal thesis       which is quite simple, very clear, very classical, but       now very unpopular—not to say openly scorned and       derided. I will argue that the formation by God of the       first woman, Eve, from the side of the sleeping, adult       Adam had, by the year 1880, been proposed infallibly       by the universal and ordinary *Magisterium* of       the Catholic Church as literally and historically       true; so that this must forever remain a doctrine to       be held definitively (at least) by all the faithful. I       would express the thesis in Latin as follows:

     ***Definitive       tenendum est mulierem primam vere et historice       formatam esse a Deo e latere primi viri dormientis.

---

*more…
*

 

[buffalo]

Dr. Bonnette:

To Vern Humphrey,

You write, “I tend to favor the biological definition first because it is more easily defined, not because I want to draw a philosophical distinction between Neandarthals and modern humans.”

I can see your point since we are so used to thinking of the Neanderthals as looking different and being different from the Cro-Magnons and ourselves. Still, as I indicated in an earlier posting the problem with the biological species concept is that it is really a mess. The overall situation is summed up by vertebrate paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson by saying, “No precise and generally acceptable definition of a species has yet been achieved.” See p. 3 of my Origin of the Human Species (Sapientia Press, 2003).

The problem with all biological species notions is that they are based upon what Aristotle calls “accidental” qualities, such as morphology, reproductive isolation, or genetics. None of these strike to the essence of any species. Fr. Raymond J. Nogar, in his The Wisdom of Evolution (1963) tries to “define” the common house cat by qualities such as the basic attributes of self-development and sensation, and the less basic attributes such as having a digestive tract, spinal cord, skull, claws, teeth, and so forth. (See Origin of the Human Species, pp. 32-33.) The problem is that the “basic” qualities of self-development and sensation are shared by all animals, while the less basic attributes may sound applicable to the house cat alone – but have probative force only if we accept that the house cat is actually a distinct natural species! I realize there are other ways of trying to define a biological species, but Simpson knows whereof he speaks. Recall also that for Darwin, there is actually no such thing as species, only groups of similar individuals gradually “morphing” into less similar individuals.

That is why I am more comfortable dealing in terms of the philosophical natural species, even though I would agree that it might be dangerous to confuse a mouse with an elephant, despite them being in the same philosophical natural species!

Dr. Bonnette

Several times I have mentioned here that why is it an either or proposition? I submit that God could have inserted Adam and Eve in the timeline wherever He wished despite what may have been happening evolutionary wise.

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Re: Buffalo Senior Member

First, I am familiar with the theological paper written by Fr. Brian Harrison to which you link, in which Fr. Harrison maintains that a literalist reading of Genesis is mandated by the “infallibility” of a papal encyclical written some one hundred and twenty years ago. While the issue there is theological, not philosophical, I was at one point engaged in a three way dialogue with him and another theologian who held an opposing view. Without revisiting the lengthy details of that dialogue, I would point out that a question was posed by a bishop in Puerto Rico to the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith in Rome raising the kind of issues Fr. Harrison poses about the reading of Genesis. The CDF replied by merely referring the bishop to what is already stated in the relevant passages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, hardly a ringing affirmation of a literalist approach.

Second, those who have read my Origin of the Human Species know that I do not insist that the current theory of human evolution must be correct. Rather, my concern is to show that if it is basicly correct, it still need not violate basic Catholic teachings about Genesis and the historicity of Adam and Eve. My book also entertains other possible explanations of Adam and Eve’s origin, not entirely excluding the literalist one. It is not the role of the philosopher to decide whose natural science is correct, especially since scientific theories sometimes require “midcourse corrections” or total revision.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[Beaver]

Zeke2517:

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about my faith in god and the theory of evolution. While evolution has certain aspects that seem logical, I try to stand by my belief in god.

I understand this is a very complicated issue to some, especially those with strong feelings towards the bible and god. While reading about evolution I find it increasingly more difficult to find sense in the bible. I question many aspects of the bible due to the overwhelming science there is to back up the claim on evolution. I have always been the type of person who can easily doubt a situation but this has got me very disturbed. The fact that I am doubting my own faith has me concerned.

Is this a test of my faith by the lord?

Has my education in science rendered me vulnerable to deception?

For years many a sience theory had backing, but in the end they were proved false, then what happens, the scientist says well I told you it was just a theory. Science does not deal with truth, it deals with theory, so it can say I told you so. NEVER LOOK AT THEORY AS TRUTH.

This is to make science your religion and the scientist your GOD.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mongladz:

I still prefer that I was created and not an offspring of a monkey. This doen’t make me confused either, so its a matter of choice.

Peace!

mongladz

No one has ever claimed that you (or anyone else) is an offspring of a monkey.

 

[PhilVaz]

beaver << the scientist says well I told you it was just a theory >>

No scientist would say that since they understand the definition of scientific theory:

– a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

– a systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

– a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena – see Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory

– a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

Yes, evolution is a theory in this sense: explains a large range of facts and natural phenomena, is repeatedly tested, is well-substantiated, is widely accepted in the scientific community, makes predictions, forms a systematic organized body of knowledge, and is on par with other scientific theories: gravity, atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory of disease.

I appreciate the posts of Dr. Bonnette in here among the otherwise boring creation-evolution threads we normally have.

Phil P

 

[rossum]

Dr. Bonnette:

Since you write from a Buddhist perspective and I write from a Catholic Christian Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective, we must expect our judgments to differ radically in many areas.

Agreed. The major difference in approach that I see between Buddhist philosophy and the “Catholic Christian Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective” is that Buddhism see the world as changing with a veneer of apparent stasis. The absence of a soul is just one part of this approach. The Thomist approach seems to me to reverse this with an essentially unchanging world having a veneer of apparent change. It is not surprising that we sometimes reach different conclusions.
Dr. Bonnette:

If you dispute all such proofs, you must demonstrate that you know them all in full detail and can defeat the logic of each. That is quite a task.

I am sure it would be a large task. Though I do not know the full detail of your arguments I suspect my approach would be to start with establishing the allowed sources of knowledge. For me these would be observation (i.e. science) and valid meditation. Buddhist scriptures are a subset of valid meditation. Both of these sources are changing as required by my perspective on the world. Even Buddhist scriptures change - some texts have been lost and a few, such as The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, have been added. In principle anyone who is enlightened could add to the corpus of Buddhist Scriptures.

Despite our differences it is good that we can agree on so many of the points under discussion. Can I also second PhilVaz’s comment thanking you for your interesting posts in this thread. They are a cut above some of the other arguments seen here.

rossum

 

[Thal59]

PhilVaz:

Yes, evolution is a theory in this sense: explains a large range of facts and natural phenomena, is repeatedly tested, is well-substantiated, is widely accepted in the scientific community, makes predictions, forms a systematic organized body of knowledge, and is on par with other scientific theories: gravity, atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory of disease.

Phil P

While I understand Dr. Bonnette’s position, as well as those of his supporters, I still do not agree with their conclusions. I do not feel it would be worthwhile to argue anything further as I do not have the educational background on the subject to debate profitably. But I decided to bold out some words in the above quote. This is one of the qualities I feel the evolution theory is lacking. We have gravity, atoms, cells, and germs that we can study and experiment with. But we do not have cavemen.

We have a limited supply of artifacts from an age that we cannot be certain of. There are many times when scientists must take an “educated guess” about something, which leads to a theory, which often becomes superceded by a better “educational guess” and resultant theory later on. So perhaps I can prolong my visit to this thread by basing a few questions on logic.

1. Does anyone here, who supports Dr. Bonnette’s theory, believe our ancestry goes back to, and subsequently stops with, Adam and Eve?
2. Do you believe that our ancestry is independent of Adam and Eve and goes back to the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons?
3. Or do you believe that Adam and Eve are descendents of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons and that therefore both are involved?

Thal59

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thal59:

While I understand Dr. Bonnette’s position, as well as those of his supporters, I still do not agree with their conclusions. I do not feel it would be worthwhile to argue anything further as I do not have the educational background on the subject to debate profitably. But I decided to bold out some words in the above quote. This is one of the qualities I feel the evolution theory is lacking. We have gravity, atoms, cells, and germs that we can study and experiment with. But we do not have cavemen.

In point of fact, we do. We have physical remains of hominids that are available for study. They can be studied as easily as we can study gravity, atoms, cells and germs (none of which can be seen with the naked eye.)

Thal59:

We have a limited supply of artifacts from an age that we cannot be certain of. There are many times when scientists must take an “educated guess” about something, which leads to a theory, which often becomes superceded by a better “educational guess” and resultant theory later on. So perhaps I can prolong my visit to this thread by basing a few questions on logic.

I invite you to visit a drug laboratory – you’ll see the same thing as scientists search for a vaccine or a cure for a disease.

Thal59:

1. Does anyone here, who supports Dr. Bonnette’s theory, believe our ancestry goes back to, and subsequently stops with, Adam and Eve?

What a strange question!!

The Church takes the position that there was an Adam and an Eve – but does not require us to believe that either one of them had no ancestors.

Thal59:

1. Do you believe that our ancestry is independent of Adam and Eve and goes back to the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons?

Even stranger!

Adam and Eve might have lived before the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon emerged.

Thal59:

1. Or do you believe that Adam and Eve are descendents of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons and that therefore both are involved?

Thal59

The genetic evidence is that the human line of descent converges on a single pair of individuals who existed long before either Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons.

 

[Thal59]

vern humphrey:

In point of fact, we do. We have physical remains of hominids that are available for study. They can be studied as easily as we can study gravity, atoms, cells and germs (none of which can be seen with the naked eye.)

I invite you to visit a drug laboratory – you’ll see the same thing as scientists search for a vaccine or a cure for a disease.

What a strange question!!

The Church takes the position that there was an Adam and an Eve – but does not require us to believe that either one of them had no ancestors.

Even stranger!

Adam and Eve might have lived before the Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon emerged.

The genetic evidence is that the human line of descent converges on a single pair of individuals who existed long before either Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons.

I had a preconceived notion as to where I wanted this line of questioning to go. However, while “hunting and gathering” information from different websites, I came across this site which is very intriguing…

darwinismrefuted.com/short_history.html

There is a lot of material, but what I have read so far is pretty interesting. Since this site seems to be answering most of the questions I had in mind, I think I’ll just leave the debate where it is.

Thal59

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

To Thal59,

The web site you cite is interesting. I just checked what it has to say about Homo erectus and was interested to note that its claims were consistent with my suggestion that three-dimensionally symmetrical hand axes dating to 500,000 years ago may be the first unequivocal evidence of the presence of an intellective soul among primates. Your cited site appears to suggest that H. erectus is simply part of modern true human beings. The only added thought I might offer at this moment is that H. erectus is usually dated back to 1.4 million years ago and, while even nearly that far back they are claimed by some to have been making symmetrical hand axes, the congruent, three-dimensional ones do not appear until some 500,000 years ago – the same time frame cited on the site you cite.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[PhilVaz]

Thal, I suggest getting Dr. Bonnette’s book, he answers these questions. Excerpts from this book here (see the middle section, Catholic Teaching)

Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record

Another book on the same theme is the self-published Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man by Glenn Morton, the former young-earth creationist. He dates Adam to 5 million years ago, an Australopithecine. I don’t have all the answers but am re-reading Bonnette’s book.

Please don’t have doubts about cave men or the Hominids, they certainly existed, we just don’t know which one for sure was Adam.

Phil P

 

[Thal59]

Dr. Bonnette:

To Thal59,

The web site you cite is interesting. I just checked what it has to say about Homo erectus and was interested to note that its claims were consistent with my suggestion that three-dimensionally symmetrical hand axes dating to 500,000 years ago may be the first unequivocal evidence of the presence of an intellective soul among primates. Your cited site appears to suggest that H. erectus is simply part of modern true human beings. The only added thought I might offer at this moment is that H. erectus is usually dated back to 1.4 million years ago and, while even nearly that far back they are claimed by some to have been making symmetrical hand axes, the congruent, three-dimensional ones do not appear until some 500,000 years ago – the same time frame cited on the site you cite.

Dr. Bonnette

I have not offered the link for the purpose of refuting everything you have said. I offered it merely to show how unstable or unreliable the evolution theory is.

I personally have no faith in man’s scientific ability to date ancient fossils and artifacts. I have no faith in man’s ability to interpret societies from a few relics. In previous threads, I mentioned the time when scientists returned to Mt. St. Helens some time after the eruption to see how the environment was recovering, if it was at all. (Some scientists had previously claimed that the area would never recover.)

In one documentary, one of the team members told of how each scientist had a pre-conceived notion of what to expect once they got there, and how they were totally surprised by what they found. None of their pre-conceived notions was even close to what they discovered.

My point was: If modern day scientists, who have an in-depth knowledge of modern day ecology, could not accurately estimate what the effect and results of a simple, locally contained, volcanic eruption would do to the ecology or how it, in turn, would respond, then how can they be credited with interpreting ancient life-forms and civilizations from nothing more than a few fossils or ax-heads?

Look at Vern’s recommendation that the Neanderthals could have had a rudimentary understanding of “God” or the “afterlife” because of evidence that they buried their dead with flowers. Yet, look at the link “Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record” that PhilVaz provided and you wll read something interesting regarding such burials. The “assumption” of flowers on the grave is pure conjecture based on the evidence of pollen being present at the site. However, the article then shows how such pollen was evident all over the site, not just at the burials. There is also the indication in the article that scientists are re-thinking if these sites are really “burial sites” as we understand them.

VOILA’ There is evidence of pollen so we can “guess” that meant flowers. If there was flowers, we can “guess” that meant an intentional burial. If there was an intentional burial, then we can “guess” that they had a rudimentary undestanding of God, eternal life, etc. On the other hand, since the pollen is all over the place, then maybe…

My position has always been that scientists give themselves too much credit, guess too much, and theorize far more than they prove. Subjects like evolution and the Big Bang can never be proven. The subject matter is too far removed from our present location in earth history, too distinct from our reality, and there are simply too many puzzle pieces missing, most of which will probably never be found. This was often Darwin’s contention; that though he doubted his own theory, he felt that given enough time, science would eventually provide the pieces that he lacked.

If we could not accurately reconstruct and estimate the recovery at Mount St.Helens, how can you be comfortable with science’s ability to reconstruct prehistoric life, culture, etc.?

Thal59

 

[Beaver]

PhilVaz:

beaver << the scientist says well I told you it was just a theory >>

No scientist would say that since they understand the definition of scientific theory:

– a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

– a systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.

– a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena – see Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Germ Theory

– a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

Yes, evolution is a theory in this sense: explains a large range of facts and natural phenomena, is repeatedly tested, is well-substantiated, is widely accepted in the scientific community, makes predictions, forms a systematic organized body of knowledge, and is on par with other scientific theories: gravity, atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory of disease.

I appreciate the posts of Dr. Bonnette in here among the otherwise boring creation-evolution threads we normally have.

Phil P

There are many theories that have been proven false…

 

[Dr.Bonnette]

Please permit me to clarify a couple points about my work.

For those who have not read Origin of the Human Species (www.origin.youshoppe.com)), please note that I am not trying to defend the current theory of human evolution. One of the tasks I attempt, among several, is to show that the current human evolution theory need not conflict with Christian teaching about the historicity of Adam and Eve and about Original Sin. I am a philosopher. It is not my task to determine the truth about evolution theory in all its scientific aspects. In fact, on page 210, I write: “We may never know whether human or general evolution occurred because of (a) the complexity of issues raised; (b) evolution’s unscientific unfalsifiability; and (c) perinoetic knowledge’s limitations.” That last point about perionetic knowledge points to inherent epistemological limitations of natural science, some of which, as pointed out by Thal59, are even more acute for events occurring long ago.

Also, what I said about Adam possibly appearing in the Homo erectus population was conditioned on two assumptions: (1), that paleontologists are correct in detemining that the Acheulean hand axes in question properly date to 500,000 years ago and (2), that they are correct in attributing their fabrication to the Homo erectus population existing at that time. Moreover, the fact that Homo erectus dates back to nearly a million years prior to the time that such tools were made raises more issues: (1) Were Homo erectus fully human from the very beginning, but failed to manifest true intellect until half a million years ago, or (2), were they merely primates that were anatomically similar to us, but did not actually possess and manifest true intellect until God infused a spiritual intellective soul in them half a million years ago?

It is not my purpose to settle all the important scientific questions here, but merely to point out that morphology is not the determining factor in deciding when we are dealing with true man. Rather, intellect is. My point philosophically is that true man is present from the moment that true intellect first appears, and that the first clear evidence of such appearance at this point in time appears to be the newer type of congruent, three-dimensionally symmetrical hand axes which first appear about 500,000 years ago. In the preface to my second edition, I point out that the paleontological record might presently fail to record the presence of the first intellective activity. Future discoveries of intellectively produced artifacts, such at artistic tools or paintings, might push back the earliest recorded date of true human presence.

In determining when true human beings first appeared, we must always be more concerned about what they did than how they looked.

Dr. Bonnette

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Dr. Bonnette:

My point philosophically is that true man is present from the moment that true intellect first appears…

Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.