|
|
          |
On April 25 I attended the Henderson Lectures at
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. The
speaker was J. Wentzel Van Huyssteen, James I. McCord Professor of Theology and
Science at Princeton Seminary. Dr.
Van Huyssteen has worked for many years on developing an interdisciplinary
conversation between theology and science. His
latest book, Alone in the World? Human
Uniqueness in Science and Theology, explores the intersection between
theology and paleo-anthropology. He
contends that since both theology and paleo-anthropology are concerned with the
question of human uniqueness among the species in the world that they have the
possibility of enriching each other. Paleo-anthropology is that branch of anthropology which
studies very early humans, those who lived before the advent of complex
civilizations and the invention of writing.
Since there are no written records to study, paleo-anthropologists must
make inferences from two kinds of evidence: fossil remains of humans or human
precursors and cultural remains such as tools and utensils.
The fossil remains give information about the physical make-up of our
ancestors. The artifacts (cultural
remains) give us hints from which we can draw inferences about how our ancestors
lived and thought. When anthropologists speak of human uniqueness they can
mean either of two things. The first
and undisputed meaning is that our species, homo
sapiens, is the only hominid species left on the earth.
In that way we are unique. The
second meaning deals with how we humans differ from other animal species,
especially those species closest to us, the great apes.
There are three human characteristics to which the scientists point: (1)
language; (2) culture; (3) self-awareness. Other
animals exhibit each of these characteristics to some degree, but none
approaches the level of humans. Scientists
argue whether the difference is one of degree or of kind. When Christian theologians speak of human uniqueness the
reference is usually to the idea that humans are made in the image of God: the
doctrine of the imago Dei.
The Biblical sources for this doctrine are found in primarily Genesis 1,
Psalm 8 and Paul’s letter to the Romans. Through
the centuries theologians have proposed different characteristics of human
beings that constitute the imago Dei.
Candidates have included the soul, reason, the capacity for love and
human community. The one point of
agreement among all the various schools of thought is that humans have a unique
relationship to God as the one animal that was created in the image of God. What could paleo-anthropologists and theologians possibly
learn from one another? As a test
case for possible cross-fertilization, Dr. Van Huyssteen looks at a particular
set of cultural artifacts, the cave paintings in Southwestern France which are
30,000 to 25,000 years old. [The
most famous paintings are in the Caves of Lascaux.
You can get a virtual tour of the cave at http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/.]
These paintings exhibit a religious awareness among our ancestors of
30,000 years ago. This is the first
clear evidence of what is a universal human trait.
Religious awareness is found in all known human cultures and may appear
on the scene only with the arrival of homo
sapiens. There is no evidence
for this kind of representational art among earlier hominid species. From this discussion I draw several conclusions.
First, the Dawkins’s of the world need to take more seriously their own
commitment to evolutionary processes. Evolutionary
theory says that natural selection is for survival.
The traits that enhance survival are the ones that get passed on.
If religion were a negative as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris contend, then
how did it survive and how does one explain its universal presence in human
culture. Attempts have been made to
explain away religion as a mistake, but evolutionary theory says that mistakes
get selected out. Second, cultural
evolution is a separate evolutionary process that occurs among humans.
Cultural evolution, once it begins, interacts with physical evolution and
changes some of its parameters. Theologians who take evolutionary theories seriously (without being wedded to them) can learn to view the imago Dei from the perspective of those theories. The first consequence for this doctrine would be a greatly humility in relationship to the rest of creation, since we humans grow out of the creation and are closely related to it. But it is also clear that something unique came onto the stage with the advent of modern humans and that a part of this uniqueness is religious awareness. There is something in humans that orient us to the divine. Finally, we can learn on both sides of the science-theology discussion not to demonize each other. The new atheists and the creationists spend a lot of paper and ink hurling anathemas at each other. Nothing positive can be achieved from these kinds of ad hominem arguments. There are many evolutionary biologists who are believing Christians and many Christians who see no necessary conflict between science and faith. Instead of trying to destroy each other, let us embark on a mutual quest for the truth of God’s creation. Your pastor, John [For last month's column go to APR Column]
|
|
This web is property of The First United
Presbyterian Church of
Edinboro.
|
