11/15/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 6 of 16)

0037 In prior blogs, I associate a sequence of four waystations in the history of the word, “selfishness”, to four elements in Domning’s visualization of original sin.

0038 Traditional theological accounts of original sin fuse its universal and its moral realities.

The universal reality is direct descent from Adam and Eve, as proposed by Saint Augustine seventeen centuries ago. This universal reality has been debunked by modern genetics.

The moral reality is a corruption of human free will. People tend to be selfish, even with moral deliberation. This implies a fall from full rationality and self-control.

0039 Domning’s theological account separates original sin’s universal and moral realities. But, the separation is not complete, because original selfishness (A) evolves into the self (B).

Evolutionary selfishness (pre-A) culminates in psychological expressions of I-myself (original selfishness, A), which I associate to the initial terminus of the term, “human selfishness” (D). The passage involves the terms, “self” (B) and “selfish” (C). Moral deliberation enters the picture with the term, “selfish”.

The moral reality, the disordered practices of human selfishness, is nothing more than original selfishness, but now with moral deliberation.

0040 The association between four waystations in the history of the word, “selfishness”, with four elements in Domning’s visualization of Original Sin appears convincing.

So, I want try my luck with another composite term, “concupiscence”.

“Concupiscence” builds upon three technical expressions. These technical expressions associate to waystations (B, C and D) in this development of the word, “selfishness”.

Note that these technical definitions do not correspond to traditional definitions of these words. I will get to that difficulty later.

0041 Once again, where am I going with this?

0042 The development of the word, “selfishness”, parallels Domning’s argument about the nature of original sin, once its universal and moral realities are separated.

The key step is the transition from the emphatic, I myself (A), to self (B), a noun. Domning attributes this step to evolution. The next step is the adjective, “selfish” (C), describing a tendency towards placing one’s own self above others. Here, moral constraints may come into play. “Selfishness” (D) reifies the adjective.

0043 Now, I want to repeat the procedure with the word, “concupiscence”. Concupiscence is traditionally used to describe the moral reality of original sin. The universal reality is descent from Adam, which now has been debunked by science.

11/11/22

Looking at Daryl Domning’s Book (2006) “Original Selfishness” (Part 8 of 16)

0049 In the competition to cooperate (D’), one must have theories of mind. One must be able to anticipate the desire to belong (concupiditas, C’) of others. One must fashion the selves of oneself and others (B’) through clues, including the expression of emphatics, such as I-myself, in various situations (A).

0050 In the end, a deep irony emerges.

These alternate technical formulations of cupid (B’), concupiditas (C’), and concupiscence (D’) describe original justice, not original sin. In other words, the niche of triadic relations allows forms of cooperation (associated to the goddess Venus) that are so rewarding that original selfishness drives us to compete (associated to the god Mars) in order to participate and flourish in cooperative social circles.

Does the term, “original justice”, describe the state of humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

Concupiscence (D’) is so adaptive that we evolved a willingness to sacrifice, even die, for one another.

0051 The most productivity-oriented social circle is the team. Being a member of a successful team increases self-preservation and reproductive success. Teams are task oriented, voluntary, opportunistic and spontaneous. Teams are most effective in scavenging resources in mixed forest and savannah, where opportunities are seasonal and varied. Teams are so successful that they share their bounties with family, band and community. Hand talk is an adaptation to team activity.

So, why do I say that the human niche is triadic relations, rather than cooperation?

0052 Cooperation and competition already are adaptations into the niche of evolutionary selfishness. Domning is clear on this. Original selfishness is a psychological adaptation that spontaneously expresses one’s presence. That psychological adaptation opens the door to the realization of self. That realization is not a thing. It is a triadic relation.

Is this way the technical definition of cupid (B’), proposed here, is precisely the opposite of the thing known in Greek mythology as Cupid, who is not a relation at all.

10/18/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 10 of 21)

0070 Chapter six is titled, “Adam and Eve in Scripture”.

Haarsma asks (more or less), “What is the best way to understand the Adam and Eve story in Genesis 2-3?”

0071 Surely, this is a question that humans evolve to ask. Humans want to understand.

We encounter an actuality. We then ask, “What normal context₃ and potential₁ applies to this actuality₂?”

This is the start of understanding. We understand when we construct a category-based nested form.

0072 Here is a picture.

0073 The best way to understand the Adam and Eve story₂ is to locate the most productive normal context₃ and potential₁.

0074 Haarsma begins with the normal context₃ of historical scholarship of the Bible₃.

The corresponding ‘something’ resolves into implications of the words in the text₁.

For example, John Walton concludes that the names, Adam and Eve, are assigned names, not historical names. An assigned name is a name that is assigned by the storyteller. A historical name may be replaced by an assigned one.

Plus, the word, “Adam”, denotes “a man of the earth” as well as a person.

0075 Advocates for historical scholarship argue that Genesis 2:4-11 (unlike other origin stories of the ancient Near East) offers an unparalleled narrative theology. The issue is not whether Adam and Eve exist as historical persons. The issue is the clarity of theological meaning.

0076 The problem?

What about human evolution?

Well, if theologians appreciate the stories of Adam and Eve because of their theological clarity, in contrast to the other mythologies of the ancient Near East, then original sin must be a clear insight that situates the stories of Adam and Eve.

0077 This relationship may be diagrammed as a two-level interscope.

The doctrine of original sin_2b situates the potential of the stories of Adam and Eve_1b in the normal context of a theological transition to our current Lebenswelt_3b.

The situation level clarifies the content level.

The stories of Adam and Eve_2a situate the potential of origin myths, as investigated by historical scholarship_1a, in the normal context of the ancient Near East_3a.

0078 The situation-level is also the nested form that goes into the intersection of our current Lebenswelt. It constitutes the vertical axis.

0079 It makes me wonder, since the underlying content of original sin_2V touches base with the ancient Near East, does the twist in human evolution_2H potentiate the formation of civilization in southern Mesopotamia?

Consider Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

10/13/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 13 of 21)

0093 Chapter seven (A’) traces the history of original sin and completes the single actuality₂, knitting human evolution_2H(4D) to interpretation of Scripture_2V (1A) and the doctrine of original sin_2V (7A’).

0094 Here is a picture.

0095 Saint Paul, in his letters to the Corinthians and to the Romans, calls this interscope into being. The elements are fuzzy. The natural transition is not clear. It is implied.

0096 Saint Augustine clarifies the theological transition. In doing so, he posits a natural transition, whereby the rebellion of Adam and Eve passes to all humankind. Original sin passes to all humanity through direct descent from Adam and Eve. Why? Procreation is bound to desire. Desire is now subject (through Adam and Eve) to concupiscence, which transliterates into “being with Cupid, the love child of Mars, the god of war, and Venus, the goddess of love”.

Yes, that sounds a tad rebellious. With friends like Cupid, who need enemies? We can can get in trouble on our own, when we are subject to concupiscence.

Amazingly, Augustine’s position turns out to be unwittingly scientific. It is so scientific as to be debunked, sixteen centuries later, by modern genetics.

0097 So, the stories of Adam and Eve do not describe a de-novo creation of humans. Instead, the potential of these stories_1V underlies Augustine’s doctrine of original sin_2V as it is held, in the single actuality of our current Lebenswelt₂, in contact with a twist in human evolution_2H, that Haarsma is not aware of.

0098 In fact, at this moment, no modern anthropologist is aware of the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H, arising from the potential of a phenomenal change in one Neolithic culture, manifesting as the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia_1H.

Why?

Semiotics is not the same as science.

10/12/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 14 of 21)

0099 These comments frame the first seven chapters of Haarsma’s book as an exercise in semitic textual structure. The pattern is A:B:C:D:C’:B’:A’.

Haarsma asks the reader to recognize a possibility.

These comments show what that possibility might be.

That possibility is the intersection of our current Lebenswelt.

0100 The natural transition_3H is plainly laid out in The First Singularity And Its Fairy Tale Trace. Implications are discussed in Comments on Original Death and Original Sin: Roman 5:12-19.

0101 The hypothesis is dramatically rendered in An Archaeology of the Fall.

The novel begins with the daughter of an archaeologist recounting the differentiation of Sumerian Gods from a primordial dyad, the waters above and the waters below. The tale appears in Samuel Noah Kramer’s 1961 book, Sumerian Mythology.

0102 The key is differentiation. Differentiation implies symbolization. Purely symbolic speech-alone talk allows the articulation of distinctions. These distinctions become real as artifacts (such as mythologies) are constructed. Artifacts validate speech-alone words. Artifacts validate the distinctions that speech-alone words symbolize.

I know that sounds circular. But, so does most everything else in our current Lebenswelt.

0103 The waters above and the waters below conjugate, and give birth to the air god. The air god separates the waters above and the waters below, before stealing everything they own. He makes their remains the ceiling and floor of his home.

Is this a picture of the Ubaid, Uruk and Sumerian Dynastic archaeological periods?

Is differentiation intrinsic to increasing labor and social specializations?

0104 Is the deception, depicted in the stories of Adam and Eve, another picture of the same archaeological periods?

10/10/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 16 of 21)

0107 Is our current Lebenswelt a way to envision the Garden of Eden?

If so, then humans in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, created as the image of God, associate to a reification, the Tree of Life. The tree of life is rooted in our evolved relationality. The tree of life branches out in cultural practices that maximize the fruits of our evolved relationality.

0108 The term, image of God, offers a vision, where worship conjoins life. Yet, our ancestors could not picture or point either “image” or “God” with hand talk. Just as birds fly, without intellectual awareness of the abstraction of flight, hominins talk to one another with manual-brachial gestures, without intellectual awareness of the abstractions that can be drawn from their discourse. Hand talk does not permit explicit abstraction.

0109 The term, the tree of life, is an abstraction. The meaning, presence and message that we project into the term, the tree of life, produces an artifact that validates our projection. The tree of life is a symbol that validates the word-symbols that compose the term.

Welcome to our current Lebenswelt.

0110 How do we define₃ the tree of life₂? What meaning, presence and message₁ do we project into the actuality of the term₂?

In the epic of Gilgamesh, the reader finds one definition. Gilgamesh obtains, then loses, a plant that confers immortality.

In Genesis 3:22, the reader finds the a similar rendering, uttered by the Lord God.

The tree of life confers immortality, by definition.

0111 But, does this definition represent a projection that reinforces an artifact (a particular interpretation) that validates an abstraction inherent in the spoken term, “the tree of life”?

This circularity is characteristic of spoken words.

Does the tree of life confer immortality because it is composed of the spoken words, “tree” and “life”?

0111 It makes me wonder about the term, “immortality”.

Immortality is just a word.

“Immortality” is also an abstraction.

Can one die and still remain alive?

Are there other meanings, presences and messages underlying the actuality of the term, the tree of life?

10/7/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 17 of 21)

0112 Two nested forms intersect for our current Lebenswelt.

A theological transition_3V brings the doctrine of original sin_2V into relation with the noumenal potential of Genesis 2:4-11_1V.

A natural transition_3H brings a twist in human evolution_2H into relation with the phenomenal potential of an adaptive cultural change_1H.

0113 The twist in human evolution_2H is described in the hypothesis of the first singularity.

Here is a synopsis.

Language evolves in the milieu of hand talk. Speech talk is added to hand talk with the appearance of anatomically modern humans (over 200,000 years ago). Hand-speech talk is practiced through the Paleolithic and into the Neolithic. The semiotic qualities of hand-speech talk favor constrained social complexity.

The first culture to practice speech-alone talk is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia (starting around 7,800 years ago). At the time, all other Neolithic, Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic cultures practice hand-speech talk. Because the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk unconstrains social complexity, labor and social specialization prospers during the Ubaid. The surrounding (hand-speech talking) cultures see it. The Ubaid exhibits increasing wealth and power. Plus, all the surrounding cultures need to do, in order to imitate the Ubaid, is to drop the hand-talk component of their hand-speech talk.

Speech-alone talk spreads from the Ubaid through imitation.

0114 The twist in human evolution_2H permits increasing labor and social complexity_1H.

But, the semiotic qualities of speech-alone talk also makes the cultural adaptations of the Lebenswelt that we evolved innonsensical.

Even though we innately expect our (hand talk) words to image and point to their referents, in our current Lebenswelt, we project meaning, presence and message into our (spoken) words, then construct artifacts that validate those projections.

How can a tradition in hand-speech talk be translated into speech-alone talk?

It cannot.

10/4/22

Looking at Loren Haarsma’s Book (2021) “When Did Sin Begin” (Part 20 of 21)

0125 Chapter ten addresses the question, “Whose fault is it?”

Subsidiary questions include (more or less), “Why doesn’t God stop sin and suffering?”, “Did God create humans in a way that permitted sin?”, and “Was the Fall inevitable or unavoidable?”

These questions will eventually be leavened with Haarsma’s interscope, containing the hypothesis of the first singularity_2Has the twist in human evolution_2H.

Figure 24

0126 If one looks at the first singularity_2H from the point of view of original sin_2V, one could ask, “Why does God not stop the transition from hand-speech to speech-alone talk?”

Why does God permit it?

If one looks at original sin_2V from the point of view of the first singularity_2H, one could ask, “Was it inevitable or unavoidable that the multi-generational and incomprehensible increase in labor and social specialization in the early Ubaid would naturally give rise to the stories of Adam and Eve?“

Of course not.

So, why does our Creator the speak to us through the depths of the confusion associated with the emergence of unconstrained social complexity?”

Why tell us the stories of Adam and Eve?

Is it a coincidence that the serpent has no hands in which to hand talk?

0127 These are not questions of blame.

These are question of mystery.

0128 Our current Lebenswelt binds the hypothesis of the first singularity_2H and the doctrine of original sin_2V, allowing cross-talk between two apparently independent nested forms. Cross-talk opens our awareness to irresolvable contradictions between the two constituting actualities. Thus, the potential of Genesis 2:4-11_1V is in conversation with the potential of speech-alone talk, in contrast to hand-speech talk_1H.

Spoken words allow abstraction in ways that cannot be imagined in hand-speech talk. Speech-alone talk offers the capacity to exploit and corrupt human relations by manipulating the meanings, presences and messages underlying purely symbolic words.

0129 Indeed, speech-alone talk is a vector for Satanic deception. Consider the serpent’s conversation with Eve. What a demonstration of speech-alone talk in action.

10/1/22

Fantasia in G minor: A Speech Written for Gunnar Beck MEP

0001 Gunnnar Beck of the Alternative Fur Deutschland Party, a member of the European Parliament, schedules a speech for the current session. A few members mill about an almost empty chamber. The speech lasts for around fifteen minutes. In that brief span, this statesman provides a true alternative for Germany, as well as all of Eurasia.

He reads the following text.

0002 “Today, I want to address a topic that has recently come to my attention. The topic concerns the start of our current Lebenswelt. The topic should be of interest to all Europeans.

Remember the stories of Adam and Eve?

(laughter by the few in attendance)

We know that they are myths. But, we cannot imagine what the myths are about.

So I ask: Can we imagine that these myths point to a scientific project that calls all the nations in Eurasia to contribute?

0003 During the past dozen years, a literary figure, Razie Mah, has published a dramatically new approach to human evolution. He offers three works: The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How to Define the Word “Religion”. The Human Niche covers the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. An Archaeology of the Fall introduces the first singularity. How To Define the Word “Religion” explores our current Lebenswelt.

0004 I will briefly elaborate the proposals of this scholar.

Here is the first hypothesis. Our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The transition from the latter to the former occurs in recent prehistory and is called ‘the first singularity’.

0005 The second hypothesis concerns the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

We are all familiar with the biological principle that natural selection brings adaptations into relation with a niche.

0006 I ask, ‘What is a niche?’

A niche is the potential of something independent of the adapting species. Typically, the niche is a material condition, say, the presence of a predator or an environmental influence. For humans, the niche is not a material condition. The human niche is the potential of triadic relations.

The philosopher Charles Peirce initiates the study of triadic relations in the modern era. Examples includes signs, mediations, judgments and category-based nested forms. Triadic relations encompass mechanical cause and effect, even as they transcend it. Triadic relations are immaterial, yet they entangle the material.

0007 Consequently, triadic relations offer a new avenue for investigating the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The book, The Human Niche, plus its attending commentary, starts the inquiry.

0008 The third hypothesis concerns our current Lebenswelt.

Consider the spoken word, “religion”. This spoken word belongs to a system of differences. “Religion” is not the same as “spirituality”. “Spirituality” is definitely not the same as a “church”. A “church” is not the same as “a popular belief that there is more to reality than material being”. In short, the word, “religion”, is purely symbolic and symbols belong to systems of differences.

0009 Do systems of differences have anything to do with language?

Yes, according to Ferdinand de Saussure, language consists of two related systems of differences: parole (or talk) and langue (or thought).

When parole is speech-alone talk, its relation to langue is arbitrary.

If speech is arbitrarily related to thought and if words compose systems of differences, then how do we know what a spoken word refers to?

0010 This is a difficult question.

Razie Mah proposes that we project meanings, presences and messages into spoken words. Then, we construct artifacts that validate our projections.

In How to Define the Word “Religion”, Razie Mah projects purely relational structures into the meaning, presence and message of the word, “religion”, creating artifacts that validate the term. But, the artifacts do not quite match what most of us think when we say the word, “religion”.

0011 Remember Eve in the Garden of Eden?

She performs the identical operations. She sees the fruit. She names the fruit with a spoken word. She projects meaning, presence and message into its name. Then, the fruit becomes an artifact that validates her projection. Until, of course, the moment that she bites into it.

Then, her eyes are opened.

This story should be familiar to all Europeans, because, right now, the eyes of many citizens are being opened, as our artifacts fail to live up to our projections. Indeed, we find that our artifacts are not at all what we think they are. We have tasted the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And, we realize that we are naked and exposed.

0012 There is a foundational problem with our current Lebenswelt.

This problem does not operate in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

So, what is the difference between our current Lebenswelt and the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?

0013 This brings me back to Razie Mah’s first hypothesis.

What is the nature of the first singularity?

Let me start with this. The evolution of talk is not the same as the evolution of language.

Hand talk is practiced in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Speech is added to hand talk at the start of our species, over two-hundred thousand years ago.

The semiotics of hand talk is crucial. Manual-brachial word-gestures image and point to their referents. So, the referent stands before the gestural word. Hominins cannot project meaning, presence and message into their gesture-words. Such projections require symbols. Manual-brachial gestures are icons and indexes.

0014 Consequently, our distant ancestors cannot perform explicit abstraction. Rather, abstractions are implicit. Implicit abstractions build our bodies and our minds. Implicit abstractions build our social circles. This is the way that we evolved to be.

Language consists of symbolic operations. Symbolic operations start to function beneath the icons and indexes of hand talk. Consequently, language evolves in the milieu of hand talk, as symbolic operations become more and more routine. General grammar appears after the domestication of fire. Hominins prosper with fire and linguistic hand-talk. When humans evolve, speech gets added to hand talk.

Anatomically modern humans practice hand-speech talk for two-hundred thousand years. Humans settle all habitable continents. Then, around seven-thousand eight-hundred years ago, something strange happens. A new culture appears on the edge of the Persian Gulf. That culture practices speech-alone talk. That culture is the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.

0015 At the beginning of the first singularity, the Ubaid is the only culture practicing speech-alone talk. All surrounding cultures practice hand-speech talk.

Today, all civilizations practice speech-alone talk.

0016 Obviously, speech-alone talk expands from the Ubaid to all the world. It does so, through mimesis.

The transition is easy. All that a hand-speech talking culture needs to do is drop the hand-talk component of its hand-speech talk.

The motivation?

Speech-alone talk increases labor and social specialization.

Speech-alone talk makes people wealthy and powerful.

Speech-alone talk allows explicit abstraction. Speech-alone talk permits people to project meanings, presences and messages into purely symbolic words. Speech-alone talk encourages people to construct artifacts that validate those projections. Consequently, speech-alone talk places no constraints on social complexity. Speech-alone talk potentiates civilization.

0017 The hypothesis of the first singularity explains why our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved.

If the hypothesis of the first singularity is plausible, then our appreciation of ourselves will never be the same.

0018 Here, I get down to business.

The hypothesis of the first singularity mandates an intercivilizational research project. Can we visualize the spread of speech-alone talk, from the Ubaid to all the world, in recent prehistory? We are looking for signs of increasing social complexity, eventually leading to civilization in various regions of the world. But, that is not all. The adoption of speech-alone talk leads to many other trends that appear in recent prehistory, such as the Indo-European and the Austronesian language expansions. The question opens wide vistas. Archaeologists of the world, hear our plea. Nations of the Eurasia, hear our voice.

We look to Iraq, the site of the Ubaid, the Halaf, and the Hassuna cultures. History begins in Sumer. We look to Iran, the site of the Susa culture, showing signs of social complexity, then, collapsing in the face of a Uruk expansion. We look to Egypt. Could speech-alone talk have spread to Egypt from Mesopotamia, potentiating civilization along the Nile? We look to the nations of the Aegean. Could the adoption of speech-alone talk contribute to the rise of Bronze Age civilizations. We look to Europe. Could the secondary farming expansion have spread speech-alone talk?

We look to Russia, as the site where the Proto-Indo-European culture coalesces. What is the prehistory of the Kurgan culture? We look to Pakistan and India, asking them to explore the prehistoric cultures giving rise to the planned cities of the Harappan culture. We look to China, for signs of increasing social complexity, leading to the Longshan culture, among others. We look to Japan, for the emergence of social complexity during the Jomon period.

We look to China, Taiwan, Philippines, New Guinea, and other nations of the eastern Pacific, asking them to investigate the nature and the timing of the Austronesian language expansion. We look to Peru and Ecuador, site of the oldest civilizations in the Americas. We look to Mexico and central America for signs leading to Mesoamerican civilizations. We look to North America, for the archaeology of the mound-building cultures.

0019 We propose that The First Intercivilizational Conference on the First Singularity be held, in the year 2025, in Berlin. Within two years, archaeologists can collate existing information with the hypothesis in mind. The intent of this conference will be to establish collaborative intercivilizational research programs. Seven years later, a second conference should give the world an indication as to the credibility of the hypothesis of the first singularity.

0020 Razie Mah offers three works, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How to Define the Word “Religion”. These three works transform our vision of human evolution.

First, our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. The transition from the latter to the former is called “the first singularity”. The first singularity involves a change in the way humans talk.

Second, the human niche is the potential of triadic relations.

Third, the semiotics of speech-alone talk potentiates unconstrained social complexity. Unconstrained social complexity defines our current Lebenswelt.

0021 These three hypotheses should be of interest to all Europeans. They address issues of intellectual concern throughout Western civilization. What if the stories of Adam and Eve are fairy tales about social developments in the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia? What if our ancestors adapt to a niche that is unlike any other mammal’s niche? How do we accept the claim that our spoken words encourage us to construct artifacts that then validate our spoken words? The implications are profound.

0022 Most of all, the hypothesis of the first singularity should inspire this body, the European Parliament, to address the continent of Eurasia, and ask, “Will you help us investigate?”

Archaeologists from all parts of Eurasia are called to participate in an intercivilizational research project. Can archaeological investigations of our local prehistories allow us to imagine the adoption of speech-alone talk as the historical condition that potentiates unconstrained social complexity? This is a huge question. This question extends beyond Eurasia. However, the question applies first to Eurasia.

Further details of this proposal will be forthcoming.

0023 I thank you for the privilege of addressing this chamber.”

09/30/22

Looking at William Lane Craig’s Book (2021) “In Quest of the Historical Adam” (Part 1 of 21)

0001 William Lane Craig publishes a work of erudition, titled, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration (Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, ISBN 978-0-8028-79911-0). The bibliography contains over 250 references.

Part One discusses what is at stake.

Part Two covers the Biblical “data” concerning Adam and runs 210 pages.

Part Three covers scientific evidence about the start of humanity (broadly defined) and runs 117 pages.

0002 Overall, the first two-thirds of the book discusses the importance of the historical Adam and explores what types of stories are contained in Genesis 2.4-11. Then, the final one-third addresses the question, “If humanity descends from a single couple, then where would we locate that couple in the scientific story of human evolution?”

0003 Clearly, this professor would have been assisted by glancing at the masterworks in the Razie Mah series, The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion”, available at smashwords and other electronic book venues.

0004 Why?

Every sentence in this book is well composed and carefully reasoned. But, Craig’s quest ends at a location that is anything but. He writes (more or less), “Adam may be plausibly identified as a member of Homo heidelbergensis, living 750,000 years ago.”

The quest ends where the book should have started.

Then, the title could have been, “What if Adam and Eve are really the first humans?”

What if, indeed.

0006 Craig’s argument presumes, all along, that Adam and Eve are the first humans.

In this examination, I do not neglect the opposing question, “What if they are not?”

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Category Archives: First Singularity