0001 This article records a presentation at a symposium on Adam, the Fall, and the goodness of God. The text is published in the journal, Pro Ecclesia (2020), volume 29(4), pages 387-406. I request that the journal to unlock this issue. After all, this lecture is not the only gem, covering a topic that is seldom broached.
0002 The author steps to the podium and posits two axioms. One addresses the evolutionary sciences, in a minimalistic sort of way. The other addresses biblical hermeneutics in the modern age. Ironically, another science hides in the shadow of the second axiom. That science is archaeology.
0003 Here is a picture of the two axioms.
0004 The science axiom poses a double difficulty.
Currently, the biological sciences present all evolution as continuous developments in time, although there are moments of radical… um… “re-organization”, hence the theory of punctuated equilibrium. When the evolutionary sciences cast their models of human evolution into the mirror of theology, the theologian sees a picture that does not quite sync with the wild change of… um… “genre” that occurs the moment after God wraps up the Creation Story, by telling humans that they should give food to the animals (Genesis 1:30).
Speaking of that, here is an application of the two axioms in action.
0005 Mirror of theology?
See Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Arc of Inquiry (2019-2014), available at smashwords and other e-book venues, as well as Razie Mah’s blog for the months of April, May and June, 2024.
On the one hand, the mirror of theology embraces the noumenon.
On the other hand, the mirror of theology reflects models proposed by science. Science is not interested in the noumenon, the thing itself. Scientists are only interested in a noumenon’s phenomena. Phenomena are the observable and measurable facets of a noumenon. Scientists build models based on observations and measurements of phenomena. If the model “works”, then scientismists want to say that the model is more real than the thing itself. At this point, natural philosophers and theologians object and say, “No, the scientific model is not more real than the thing itself.”
0006 After an awkward pause, triumphalist scientists reply, “Well, then, how are you going to know anything about the noumenon without our models?”
“Well,” the natural philosophers say, “What about matter and form? I can know these about the noumenon through experience of it.”
“So how are you going to do that when the noumenon is evolutionary history? How can you grasp that though determining its matter and form?”
To which the theologian sighs and says, “Listen, whatever the noumenon is, it cannot be reduced scientific models of its phenomena. So, I will set up a mirror that will reflect your scientific model, so you can be assured that your models are not ignored when I contemplate the metaphysical structures intrinsic to the thing itself, while keeping my mind open to revelation (including the the Bible). I will call it ‘the mirror of theology’.”
0007 To which the scientist counters, “And, we will correspondingly set up a mirror in our domain, a mirror of science. We will look at the theological statements concerning the character of the noumenon, which really should just be replaced by our mathematical and mechanical models. Then, we will laugh at and ridicule them.”
0008 Now, I once again present the odd coincidence pictured before as an application of the two axioms.
Do I have that correctly?
Does the scientist project his model into the mirror of theology?
Does the theologian project his metaphysical analysis into the mirror of science?
How confusing is that?
0008 It seems to me, a mere semiotician, that these two images actually reflect a single real being. The theologian looks into the mirror of theology and sees what evolutionary scientists project, then looks at revelation and locates an appropriate correspondence. Then, when the theologian’s correspondence is viewed by the scientist in their mirror of science, it says, “That is superstitious nonsense!”
“It”?
I thought male and female he created them.
“It” must be a first approximation.
0009 Of course, to the semiotician, the whole situation is sort of funny, because it implies that there is a body of wisdom that is independent of science, but not subject to science, because it concerns the noumenon, the thing itself.
0034 Yes, Razie Mah covers what postmodern scientists should project into the mirror of theology.
Our current Lebenswelt (German for “living world”) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
The discontinuity is called “the first singularity”.
0035 The discontinuity entails a change in the way humans talk.
The hypothesis is technically described in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace.
The scientific discovery is dramatically portrayed in An Archaeology of the Fall.
Both texts are available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0036 The hypothesis, along with the hypotheses proposed in The Human Niche and How To Define the Word “Religion”,pose significant challenges to the way that human evolution is currently conceptualized. See Comments on Michael Tomasello’s Arc of Inquiry (1999-2019), as well as Razie Mah’s blog for January through March 2024.
0037 Arnold drills down into the ideological substance of etiology. With the hypothesis of the first singularity,the theologian’s focus on etiology bifurcates precisely along the fault-line between two genres.
Shall theology project this nested form into the mirror in the domain in science?
0038 The first step in Albright’s development scenario corresponds to the stories of Adam and Eve through the Table of Nations (following the stories of Noah’s flood). Here, Albright’s intuition hits the mark. This step corresponds to a phase of human reason, that may be correctly labeled, “proto-logical”.
Not surprisingly, the “proto-logical” label also applies to all the literature of the ancient Near East that is listed by Arnold.
Indeed, the label, “proto-empirical”, also applies.
Imagine passage from a world that thinks in hand-speech talk to a world that thinks in speech-alone talk. The former allows a diversity of implicit abstractions. The latter does not, because explicit abstraction gums up the works of implicit abstraction. In the proto-empirical phase, explicit abstraction starts to establish a life of its own.
0039 Arnold adds that the next etiological phase corresponds to the stories of Abraham. The founding of the people of Israel touches base with Albright’s “empirical” phase. The Biblical text changes in clarity and focus when passing from the mythohistories of Noah to the tales of Abraham. Terah does not move from his long-established home city lightly. He moves for empirical reasons. Yes, it is history, but it is rendered as myth.
0040 So, the Primeval History, along with other written origin stories of the ancient Near East, may be gathered under the catchment of “mytho-history”. This term has the same semiotic structure as “proto-logical” and “proto-empirical”. Yes, it is logical, but it is before formal logic. Yes, it is empirical, but it is before the empirical takes on a life of its own.
0041 Arnold notes that Albright sees how the term, “adamah”, changes from “humanity” to “a personal name”, in the course Genesis 2.4 through 4.
He sees the change as significant and unsettling.
But, he does not have a vision where the stories of Adam and Eve are located in the tourbillion of increasing unconstrained social complexity manifesting in the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.
0042 Barth smiles at this unsettlement. For this theologian, as soon as Adam is with us, so is Christ.
In the construction of the temple of the heavens and the earth, God creates humans in His image in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
In the manufacture of Adam’s body and the inspiration of Adam’s breath, God creates humans in our current Lebenswelt.
0043 Thus, the discontinuity of the first singularity that appears in the mirror of theology, located in the domain of theology, is reflected back in the mirror of science, located in the domain of science, as the discontinuity between Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 2:4.
I wonder.
Can I imagine that there is only one mirror?
0044 A twenty-first century reading of Genesis challenges evolutionary scientists.
Genesis joins all the written origin stories of the ancient Near East, in proclaiming what evolutionary scientists ignore,humans are created by the gods in recent prehistory. Indeed, a causal observation of the archaeological data demands the proposal of a hypothesis like the first singularity, if only the separate two million years of evolution within constrained social complexity from the 7800 years of theodramatic madness within unconstrained social complexity.
But, there is more, see Razie Mah’s blog on October 1, 2022, for a research project for all of Eurasia.
0045 The stories of Adam and Eve precisely capture the theodramatic character and the absolutely crazy turns of events that typify our current Lebenswelt. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.
Meanwhile, the Creation Story intimates a deep prehistory, confounding the construction of the temple of the heavens and the earth with a counter-intuitive sequence of events that weirdly coincides with a phenomenological vision of the Earth’s evolutionary “progression”.
0046 A twenty-first century reading of Genesis challenges theologians interested in the noumenon of humans, in our current Lebenswelt.
If the hypothesis of the first singularity becomes more and more plausible, so does a second doctrine of original sin,where the deficits of Augustine’s first attempt are amended, yielding a doctrine that applies to the post-truth condition. See Razie Mah’s blog for January 2, 2024 for a call to action. Also see Razie Mah’s blog for July through October 2024. These blogs will be assembled (for user convenience) as a three-part commentary, Original Sin and the Post-Truth Condition (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).
0106 In Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II proposes that original innocence entails a gift of holiness given to man and to woman, enabling them to participate in the inner life of God, through their radical giving of self to one another, in purity of heart.
He concludes that the ethos of the gift may serve as the basis for a truly adequate anthropology.
0107 To this examiner, Pope John Paul II stands on the soapbox of the theology of Thomas Aquinas. He proclaims biblical teaching.
At the same time, he points toward the prelapsarian Adam… or adamah… and subtly suggests that a truly adequate anthropology may be found in… an application of Aquinas’s metaphysics and biblical teaching to who we evolved to be.
0108 Male and female we evolved to be?
And more…
Male and female in mutual self-giving, we evolved to be.
0109 Here is a picture with another way to appreciate the relation between John Paul II’s specific application and the broad application that The Theology of the Body intimates.
This schema may be applied to all social circles.
0110 Adamah is “humanity”, when the hominin and the social circle may be distinguished but not separated. Adamah do not articulate triadic relations using explicit abstractions. Rather, adamah live them and, over generations, adapt to them. We live by implicit abstraction. Implicit abstractions are built into our souls and bodies. Adamah associates to the “image of God” of Genesis verses 1:26-31.
0111 The foundational social circles are family (5) and friends (5).
The social circle for obligatory collaborative foraging is the team (15). Here is where our lineage learns to be productive and have fun. Proto-linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to teams. Teams engage in sensible construction.
The social circle that provides safety in numbers in travel and at night is the band (50).
The social circle that brings harmony to diverse teams is the community (150). Here is where we learned to be more than productive and experience more than fun. Fully linguistic hand talk is an adaptation to community. Communities engage in social construction. Social construction is the meaning underlying the term, “religion”.
0112 The social circle that gathers bands and communities in seasonal celebrations is the mega-band (500). Here is where singing is first used for social synchronization. The gathering cannot last long, in order to avoid disease. So, rapid social synchronization is required.
Once the voice is under voluntary control due to social and sexual selection, the voice is exapted at the start of our own species, Homo sapiens, over 200,000 years ago. Humans practice hand-speech talk until the first singularity.
The social circle that calls for wisdom and offers deep witness to the signs of The One Who Hand Talks the World Itself is the tribe. The tribe is a linguistic community.
0113 Unbeknownst to Pope John Paul II, a theology of original innocence as a disposition towards interpersonal self-giving may be precisely the metaphysics needed to conceptually elucidate the dynamic harmonies within and among social circles that characterize hominin evolution.
0114 Man is not meant to be alone, as a radical individual, whose sexuality is a tool to satisfy “needs”, according to some theoretical -ismist construction.
Yet, man is alone, caught in a web of explicit abstractions promising to solve his alienation, by incorporating him into an idea, an “-ism”, concocted by some “Western Enlightenment inspired” political philosopher. If he buys into the agenda, then he may be a person, among an ideologically defined people.
Such theory may be technically correct, but it is wholly misleading. Now, -ismists are increasingly discredited.
0115 In our current Lebenswelt, we live in the state of original sin.
We are not alone in contemplating our condition.
Alexander Dugin calls for a fourth political theory.
Pope John Paul II offers a theology that complements Dugin’s vision.
Dugin offers a political theory that complements the pope’s theology.
0116 Just beyond Adam, representing our current Lebenswelt, there is adamah, prelapsarian humanity, representing the Lebenswelt that we evolved to be. Philosophical inquiry into biblical teaching may allow us to see that humans and social circles co-evolve, so man was never meant to be alone.
The people are beginning to realize that the -ismists are wrong, the narod is where we could be, and the ethnos is where we can never return to. We long to return. But, we cannot. So turn around and see what God has to offer.
0117 Perhaps, now, in a confused and exploratory fashion, we can modify our scientific interpretation of human evolutionand stand on Aquinas’s soapbox just like the the pope does, and greet the prelapsarian adamah, as who we evolved to be.
0118 My thanks to the author for publishing an article worthy of examination.
Surely, this examiner goes to places that the author never envisioned.
Such is the way of scholastic inquiry. Commentaries follow commentaries. Then, everything changes.
0001 On August 14, 2024, Razie Mah, the blogger and author of The Human Niche, An Archaeology of the Fall and How To Define the Word “Religion, releases an e-book, titled “Exercises in Artistic Concordism“.
Concordism is harmony between religion and science, particulary, the biblical origin stories and evolutionary history. Concordism attempts to build a bridge. But there is always a problem.
0002 According to current interpretations of these matters, either religion or science has to give.
Enter semiotics. Semiotics is the study of sign-relations. Sign-relations are triadic relations. Triadic relations? Thirdness (the triadic realm of normal contexts) brings secondness (the dyadic realm of actuality) into relation with firstness (the monadic realm of possibility).
0003 What if Genesis One is a sign of the evolutionary record?
If one reads the Creation Story through the lens of Charles Peirce’s typology of natural signs, then each day of creation offers icons, indexes and symbols of a corresponding epoch. The days, like pearls, string perfectly onto the evolutionary record. The aesthetic correspondence is beautiful to behold.
0004 What has to give?
The interpretation that the Creation Story is itself the revelation? Perhaps, Genesis One records a revelation. That means there is a visionary, which brings up the question. How do we (as the ones who will hear the words of the vision) evolve to be who we are created to be? We are created to recognize the signs of God. What does this mean?
And, what if the stance that the Creation Story is a vision gives us ways to answer these questions?
0005 What else has to give?
Our theoretical formulation of human evolution? Yes, there is more to our evolution than fossils and genetics. What if, as the Genesis text indicates, our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in? What if there is a cultural twist in recent prehistory?
0006 If one reads the awkward textual transition between the Creation Story and the stories of Adam and Eve as discontinuity, then one may wonder why all the written origins stories of the ancient Near East portray the origin of humans as a recent event. Humans are created, de novo, by differentiated gods.
Why can’t any of the civilizations of the ancient Near East see past a time horizon that an anthropologist may place, say, at the start of the Ubaid archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia?
Why can’t these ancient civilizations see the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
These queries lead to a much more inflammatory question. Why is our current Lebenswelt not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in?
Imagine the answer to that one!
0007 Today, civilized folk are abuzz about the coming singularity. What if it is not the first?
Uh oh, the first singularity is a scientific hypothesis that harmonizes a cultural twist in human evolution with the stories of Adam and Eve.
0008 Both religious appreciations of the text and scientific blind-spots must transform if there is to be concord.
Plus, that concord will be neither religious nor scientific.
0001 These comments are offered on my blog as a sample of the character of works that are available for sale at www.smashwords.com. They seem rather dry and technical. Nevertheless, they offer an innovative postmodern approach that should interest enterprising students and scholars. Here, the category-based nested form and the two-level interscope come into play.
These categorical structures are introduced in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.
0002 J.B. Stump offers his views in the March issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (volume 72(1), pages 15-24). Perspectives is the flagship publication of the American Scientific Affiliation. Stump’s article may be available for download at their website. If not, please request.
Stump addresses the question, “Did God guide our evolution?”
He reviews several broad ways to answer, then discusses his favorite.
0003 So, does God guide our creation?
What about the scientific description of human evolution?
These questions point in different directions, C2 and C1.
The second direction (C2) is that God intentionally creates human beings in His image.
The first direction (C1) claims that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of our species, Homo sapiens.
0004 These two claims can both be formulated as category-based nested forms (CBNF).
The CBNF contains four expressions. The fourth is paradigmatic. A normal context3 brings an actuality2 into relation with the possibility of ‘something’1. The subscripts refer to Peirce’s categories.
0005 Now, I associate features in each direction to the CBNF.
The normal context3 for C1 is science3. The normal context3 for C2 is the Genesis portrayal of God’s work3.
The actuality2 for C1 is human evolution2 and for C2 is the Genesis creation of humans2.
The potential1 for C1 is ‘natural selection and genetics’1. The potential1 for C2 is ‘the picture of humans as images of God’1.
0006 Here is how that looks in technical notation.
0007 So, did God guide our evolution?
According to Stump, the first strategy (A1) for answering the question relies on semantics.
I ask, “What problem does semantics solve?”
Well, I see two nested forms. How do they interact?
0008 Normal contexts follow the logic of exclusion, alignment and complement.
If they exhibit the logic of exclusion, the nested forms come into conflict. It’s God’s work3 or science work3. It is either one or the other.
If the logic is complement, then one could end up with Steven Gould’s idea of “non-overlapping magisteria”. This is not much of a complement. Perhaps, a truce is a better description.
If they exhibit the logic of alignment, then one nested form virtually emerges from (and situates) the other. This structural relation is called a “two-level interscope”. The two levels are contenta and situationb. Contenta goes with Peirce’s category of firstness (the realm of possibility). Situationb associates with Peirce’s category of secondness (the realm of actuality).
The two-level interscope has two flows.
In the upward flow, contenta underlies situationb.
In the downward flow, situationb orders contenta.
0009 So, I have two statements (C2 and C1) and two levels. Which goes with which?
Here is where semantics comes into play. Semantics is about language. When I talk about science, my words are usually content-oriented. When I think about God’s creation, I am contemplating my own (and everyone else’s) situation.
There is another, more technical semantic argument. The religious statement (C2) cannot be situated by the science statement (C1), because the Positivist’s judgment rules out metaphysics. The Positivist’s judgment is developed in Comments on Jacques Maritain’s Book (1935) Natural Philosophy. I cannot help but smile at this application. From a semantic point of view, how could science situate a nested form that it cannot consider?
Here is a picture of the semantic-ordered, two-level interscope.
Figure 2
0010 Ironically, this model initiates questions that key into Stump’s second answer, the nomological strategy (A2). The nomological strategy suggests that the laws of human evolution are not well understood. The laws of evolution may be, but there is something wrong with their application to human evolution. Stumps reviews some critical arguments.
0011 The two-level interscope pictured above endorses the “yes, but” character of the nomological approach, addressing the question, “Did God guide human evolution?”
If science is so smart, then it should situate the religious nested form, rather than the other way around. The fact that the Positivist judgment excludes metaphysics indicates that science can understand human evolution only in terms of material and instrumental causalities. However, I personally situate the evolution of my species in terms of my religious sensibility, which involves immaterial causalities, such as final attributes and formal design.
What does this imply?
The ultimate human niche is not material.
Indeed, this is the central thesis of the masterwork, The Human Niche, available at www.smashwords.com.
0012 The semantic (A1) strategy may be adjusted by the nomological (A2), producing something like this.
Figure 3
0013 Well, if our hominin ancestors adapted over millions of years into a niche that is not material, then the third answer, the causal joint strategy (A3), comes into play. The causal joint strategy suggests that God does not obviously intervene in human evolution, but God nevertheless creates. The question is, “How?” Stump considers several authors with very curious answers.
0014 These answers have something in common.
They exploit the dynamics of the two-level interscope.
The divine situationb guides the science contenta.
The scientific contenta underlies divine subtle interventionb.
“Subtle” means “below the threshold of detection”.
0015 How could this happen?
I only need to substitute God’s Will3b for the situation-level actuality3b and God’s Presence1b for the situation-level potential1b.
Here is how that looks.
Figure 4
0016 God’s Will3b associates to God’s work3b and what this means to me3b.
God’s Will3b provides subtle guidance to science work3a and what is happening3a.
Subtle guidance underlies the Anthropic Principle.
God’s Presence1b associates to the potential of humans (including me) being created in the image of God1b.
0017 How does God’s Presence1b manifest?
God’s Presence1b is the potential underlying God’s will3b. Also, it1b stands in the slot 1b, which is the potential1b of situating the content level actuality2a. This associates God’s Presence1b with the potential of situating human evolution2a.
This potential to situate operates according to joint causes, in the realm of possibility1.
God’s Presence1b virtually situates (and is emergent to) the potential of ‘natural selection and genetics’1b. The word, “virtual”, means “in virtue” (rather than the modern use, “in simulation”). The term, “in virtue”, goes with final attributes and formal design.
So, while the stuff of Neodarwinism may be scientifically regarded according to material and instrumental causes, the virtue of God’s Presence1b cannot be fully ignored in either the adaptation1a or the phenotype1a. This is the central point of the joint causal (A3) answer. Biologists cannot avoid joint causality when they discuss adaptation or phenotype. Many modern biologists label God’s Presence1b, “chance1b” or “random1b”.
0018 In sum, divine subtle intervention operates in the realms of normal context3 and potential1, as pictured above. Neither of these can be scientifically observed or measured.
0019 The pertinence of the joint causal (A3) semantic (A1) approach does not stop there.
Adaptations1a and phenotypes1a are actualities that have the potential1a of underlying human evolution2a.
That means that adaptations2 and phenotypes2 are actualities with their own nested forms.
One can imagine that God directly intervenes in either nested form by manipulating its underlying potential. Such intervention avoids detection because the actualities, adaptation2 and phenotype2 refer to the same biological entity2. In other words, two actualities2 constitute a single entity2. Therefore, the two actualities2 are confounded.
0020 Let me develop this scenario in a little more detail.
Neodarwinism1a consists in two independent nested forms, as noted in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome. These nested forms belong to the situation-level of a two-level interscope.
In one, natural selection3b brings adaptation2b into relation with a niche1b. The niche1b is the potential1b of situating an actuality independent of the adapting species2a.
In the other, body development3b brings phenotype2b into relation with genotype1b. The genotype1b is the potential1b of situating DNA2a.
In the joint causal answer, God could directly manipulate either an actuality independent of the adapting species2a, the foundation of the niche1b, or DNA2a, the foundation of the genotype1b, without detection. Why? A change in one can mask a change in the other. They are confounders.
0021 Here is a picture of these independent category-based nested forms.
Figure 5
0022 The adaptation2 is not the same as the phenotype2. Each arises from a different potential1. Each requires its own normal context3. However, adaptation2 and phenotype2 pertain to a single actuality2, the biological entity, in this case, the human being2. The human being is the intersection of adaptation2 and phenotype2.
According to the chapter on presence in How to Define the Word “Religion”, intersections are mysterious. They contain contrasting features that cannot be resolved through the logic of noncontradiction. Biologists present distorted views when they claim that evolution consists in either natural selection or DNA-based body development. The intersection of these two nested forms codifies what biologists are really trying to say, but fail, because of preferences for either natural history or genetics.
0023 So, the joint causal answer suggests that, even if God directly manipulates the actualities underlying the niche1b or the genotype1b, scientists could never detect the intervention, because the evolved biological entity2 is an intersection, filled with contradictions.
Here is how that looks.
Figure 6
0024 This brings me to Stump’s favorite strategy (A4), the epistemological.
The epistemological strategy highlights the contrast between science work3a and God’s work3b, while simultaneously asserting that they cannot be divorced. I am a product of human evolution2a. I am created in the image of God2b. Science work3a is what is happening3a. God’s work3b is what this means to me3b.
Here is a picture of that strategy.
Figure 7
0025 Now, I address the elephant in Stump’s room.
I do so in a roundabout way.
I start with a question about the question.
0026 Does God guide human evolution?
What is the difference between this question and…
Did God guide human evolution?
0026 One strategy to answer this question is semantic (A1).
Human evolution is in our past. Are we no longer are evolving? It sure seems that we aren’t. In fact, who knows what we are doing?
0027 What does this imply?
The nomological strategy (A2) comes to bat.
Homo sapiens comes into existence, and lives for some time, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Currently, we are no longer in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Therefore, our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
I conclude that a transition from one Lebenswelt to the other is missing in current accounts of human evolution.
This missing element is hypothesized in The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace and reflected upon in Comments on Original Sin and Original Death: Romans 5:12-19. This transition is dramatized in An Archaeology of the Fall, available on www.smashwords.com.
0028 With this said, the joint causal strategy (A3) cannot be ignored.
If (as proposed in The Human Niche), humans adapt into the niche of immaterial triadic relations (such as the category-based nested form), then God’s work3b virtually situates nature’s operations, as understood by science3a. In our evolution, the material world enters into an evolving awareness of immaterial triadic relations, without compromising its instrumental and material causalities.
0029 On top of that, the epistemological strategy (A4) says that God’s work3b and science work3a cannot be divorced, in the same way that what this means to me3b cannot be divorced from what is happening3a.
0030 So obviously, the elephant in the room is concordism.
Did God guide human evolution? How does God guide us today?
These questions aim to harmonize scientific formulations and Biblical revelation.
Stump is on target. Four different strategies apply. But, the target is so much larger than he realizes.
For example, Comments on Christy Hemphill’s Essay (2019) “All in a Week’s Work” introduces a harmony between cognitive psychology and metaphors within Genesis 1.
The concord between humans created in the image of God2b and human evolution2a will prove to be multi-faceted, addressing who we are2b as well as who we evolved to be2a.
0031 My thanks to J.B. Stump for publishing his evocative article.
