Abstract
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
|
Vol.2: Genesis and Early Man
PREFACE
THE EXISTENCE
of fossil remains of early man with grossly brutalized features
and interpreted as proof of man's animal origin, poses a serious
threat to Christian theology. Until these fossil remains became
widely known, very few questioned the historicity of Adam and
Eve. But today, whether Adam and Eve really existed in the historical
sense that Genesis implies has become a matter of some debate
even among Christian people.
Many still hold to a literal interpretation
of these early records (as I most certainly do), whereas others
feel that Adam and Eve are merely to be understood as symbolic
representatives of the first truly human beings, who were in
reality little more than made-over apes, evolved as to their
bodies though with implanted "souls" to give them a
unique constitution responsive to divine influences and capable
of fellowship with God. The idea of instant creation of man followed
by a real temptation involving a real tree in a real garden is
held to belong to the days of a naive faith no longer justified
in the light of present knowledge. And no serious thought is
given, as a rule, to the possibility that the first human pair
could have been nearly as recent as the traditional biblical
chronology invites us to believe, much less that the first woman
was actually taken out of the first man by a divine surgical
operation of a sort.
But I am persuaded that when we
abandon the concept of a truly historical Adam and Eve, experiencing
a real temptation and Fall and expulsion from the Garden, we
undermine the logical basis of the plan of salvation because
that plan involves an undoing by a Second Adam of what the First
Adam did, and it involves the reconstitution of a new family
of human beings in the Lord Jesus Christ, capable of fulfilling
the role for which Adam was originally created, and destined
one day to do so. When we abandon the Genesis account of man's
origin, we undermine the rationale of the biblical view of man's
destiny.
What, then, are we to do with the
current body of evidence which anthropological research has accumulated
and which is almost
pg
1 of 3
universally interpreted
in such a way as to challenge the biblical record of man's early
history at almost every point?
I suggest we accept wholeheartedly
whatever factual knowledge there is but apply to it an alternative
interpretation. We cannot merely reject it, for that is to commit
intellectual suicide. But it can indeed be interpreted otherwise
than from the current evolutionary viewpoint; and the alternative
interpretation proves, to my mind, to be thoroughly satisfying
and reasonable. And by adopting this alternative interpretation
of the data we are really only fulfilling an accepted scientific
dictum which holds that we should explain the past as far as
possible in terms only of known events or processes happening
at the present. We need only qualify this to include what has
happened within the recent past, within clearly historical times,
for which we have adequate documentation.
Of the seven Papers in this volume,
the first (Fossil Remains of Early Man and the Record of Genesis)
is just such a hold re-nterpretation of the meaning of the fossil
remains of early man, taking cognizance of certain facts relative
to their distribution around the world. It is logical and does
not ignore the evidence, but it rather views it from a new perspective.
The question of the time element is not considered in this reconstruction,
since I believe that the whole question of chronology is still
in a state of flux and the techniques of establishing the time
frame are by no means yet entirely dependable. The new framework
is undoubtedly an over-simplification, but it does point the
way to a viable alternative that ought to be explored.
The second Paper (Primitive
Cultures: A Second Look at the Problem of Their Historical Origin)
revives an older view of primitive cultures in the light
of far more information than its former proponents had at their
disposal. This is in explanation of the evidence amply supported
by comparatively recent historical events, that primitivism and
barbarism are not necessarily the earliest stages of man's condition
but are more probably the result of degeneration. Indeed, the
evidence indicates that the higher a civilization the greater
the degeneration is likely to be when it breaks down. It is no
longer safe, then, to assume that primitive society provides
us with a picture of the earliest condition of man, or to put
it in a slightly different form, that our primitive contemporaries
are our contemporary ancestors.
The third Paper, (Establishing
a Paleolithic I.Q.) takes a second look at the achievements
of early man as evidence of his intelligence. More recent experiments
by modern man to accomplish the same
pg.2
of 3
tasks by his techniques
force us to conclude that our early forebears were quite as intelligent,
if not more so, than we are today.
The fourth Paper (The Supposed
Evolution of the Human Skull) shows how substantially environmental
factors can modify the human skull and give it an ape-like cast
that has no bearing whatever on phyletic relationships. The argument
from comparative anatomy is seriously weakened in this respect
in the light of present knowledge.
The fifth Paper (The Fallacy
of Anthropological Reconstructions) is almost entirely negative
in its approach, yet it serves to show how very little validity
there really is to so many boldly conceived reconstructions that
purport to demonstrate evolution in current textbooks.
The sixth paper (Who Taught
Adam to Speak? ) deals with a particularly troublesome problem,
the origin of language, a problem no nearer to solution than
it was in Darwin's day. Indeed, it has proved so baffling from
an evolutionary point of view that it has become almost indecent
even to raise the issue for discussion in scientific circles.
Finally, one further Paper (Light
from Other Forms of Cultural Behaviour on Some Incidents
in Scripture) shows that the study of the subject matter of cultural
anthropology can be thoroughly worthwhile for the Christian
and sheds light on many situations in the Old Testament and the
New which have hitherto largely escaped attention in biblical
commentaries.
pg.3
of 3
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|