Musings of the ASA Director Emeritus
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (52) posts »

draft for Smithsonian post

Posted By Randall D. Isaac, Sunday, November 6, 2016

The Broad Social Impacts Committee of the Smithsonian Institute is asking each of us as members to write a 500 word or less post responding to a question about the Anthropocene Epoch. The question I am addressing is:

 "From your religious, philosophical or personal perspective, how do you understand the significance of the evolutionary process that has led to the global impact of Homo sapiens on planet Earth?"

 

I have written the draft below. It's a first pass and I'm willing to edit it significantly. I would greatly appreciate suggestions and comments from all of you. It is due before the end of November but I'd like to get it off my to-do list.

Thank you!

 

“What Are Human Beings That You Are Mindful of Them?”

Psalm 8:4, NRSV

Randy Isaac

The effort to formally designate our current age as the Anthropocene Epoch can be seen as either a paean to humanity or as an expression of self-exaltation. The latter view considers each extant species to be a successful culmination of billions of years of evolution with no species having superiority. The former view sees our species as a distinctive species worthy of praise for its accomplishments.

The psalmist looks at the grandeur of the heavens, notes the moon and the stars, and exclaims how remarkable it is that God would be mindful of human beings, by comparison hardly worthy of note. Yet the psalmist continues with amazement that God “…made [human beings] a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet…” (Ps 8:5-6, NRSV)

The biblical perspective resonates with the Anthropocene Epoch designation in several ways. Three of those ways to be considered here are the uniqueness of humans, the human capability of understanding other species, and the responsibility given to humans for stewardship.

The biblical perspective emphasizes the uniqueness of humankind. Humans are the final act of creation and are the only species to whom God gives his own image. The Son of God became a human, signifying a special relationship between God and humans who have God-given responsibilities and are accountable to God. Scientifically, the unique evolutionary achievement of humans is manifold. Humans have an unparalleled adaptability enabling survival through significant environmental changes. Humans have an enhanced level of consciousness, communication skills, and ability for abstract reasoning. No other species comes close to human ability in these areas.

While most species interact with other species as needed for survival, only humans seem capable of studying and understanding any other species, independent of need. The biblical perspective stresses this capability in the account of Adam naming the animals. In Genesis 2:18-20 God forms animals and birds as helpers to Adam and they are brought to him for naming. The ancient practice of naming was not an arbitrary task of finding a pleasing word but an in-depth study of the characteristics of the one being named, assigning a name reflecting their nature. This is an indication that humans have evolved the ability and the mission of studying and understanding the nature of all species.

God explicitly gives humans the assignment of having dominion over the earth and all that is in it. This is a mandate for stewardship and loving care. Our scientific recognition that humans have a global impact, whether for good or for bad, shows how we cannot escape this assignment. The designation of an epoch reflecting our impact on the earth is a powerful reminder that we are responsible for sustaining all life on earth. May we all do our part to nurture and care for our world.

Tags:  anthropocene  evolution  human evolution 

Permalink | Comments (10)
 

Comments on this post...

Amy B. Dykstra says...
Posted Sunday, November 6, 2016
My favorite part of your draft response is the final paragraph. Might you want to give stewardship a more prominent position in your essay?

Also, I noticed you didn't say much about evolution, though "evolutionary processes" is part of the question. You mention humans as the "final act of creation" in the same paragraph that includes "the unique evolutionary achievement of humans." Will readers be confused about where you think humans come from?
Permalink to this Comment }

Carlos Pinkham says...
Posted Sunday, November 6, 2016
All points are well taken, but I see no clear reference to the role of original sin in causing the geologic markers that are being posited as warranting the designation of a new Epoch. No matter which one you take; the appearance of radionuclides in depositional layers beginning with the culmination of WWII; the signals of ever increasing erosion with its resulting increased sedimentary deposition that began with the industrial revolution, or any of the others, the hand of fallen man can be seen.

Yes, we are the intended culmination of God's Creation, and yes, God intended us to be good stewards of His Creation, but our fallen nature has meant, among other things, that each of us focuses on the minuscule and often removed impact without due consideration to the accumulated impact of the lot of us. If we all could have implemented the teaching of Philippians 2:3 and 4 from the day it was written, we would not now be faced with the possibility of the Anthropocene Epoch.
Permalink to this Comment }

Randall D. Isaac says...
Posted Monday, November 7, 2016
Amy,
Thank you for your suggestions. I agree. I had intended to expound further on the evolutionary ancestry but I ran into the 500 word limit. I think I'll add a couple of sentences and see if they force me to shrink it further.
Permalink to this Comment }

Randall D. Isaac says...
Posted Monday, November 7, 2016
Carlos,
Very interesting concept. I confess I have a little difficulty with the perspective of our human influence being a result of our fallen nature. It may be correct but I don't really know what that means. Can we really claim that if we didn't have a fallen nature, we would not be facing a climate change issue now? How does that work? Would we have been so insightful that we never would have developed fossil fuel dependence? Would we have had the foresight to mitigate CO2 emissions? Would we have known how to offset the impact? Would human population density issues never have occurred? Would we never interfere with ecological systems?
So in theory from a theological perspective you may be right but in practical terms I don't see how it works.
Permalink to this Comment }

Carlos Pinkham says...
Posted Monday, November 7, 2016
Randy,
I understand and appreciate your wrestling with the practicality of the point I was trying to make. Since none knows except God what He intended our "Edenic" nature to be, no one can say for certain whether we humans would have been so insightful as to avoid all the consequences we are now facing. From an evolutionary point of view, I even wonder if we could ("could" in italics; you and I both appreciate the dilemma of that one.) be human without our fallen nature. I propose the fallen nature was necessary for us to have choice (knowing good from evil) and thus not to be confined to walking with God in Eden like mere puppets. God had more in mind for us than that.
Permalink to this Comment }

David E. Singer says...
Posted Friday, November 11, 2016
Randy, in your Smithsonian essay, although I avow all that you've written, I'm not sure you've answered the question of "the significance of the evolutionary process." You affirm the biblical perspective saying homo sapiens, among all the other creatures, warrant singling out as especially significant. But you make no reference to how or if this in any way relates to the evolutionary process. Do you mean to suggest there's no relationship between our "global impact" or our uniqueness as a species and the "evolutionary process"? You end by citing our stewardship responsibilities, yet once again make no reference to how such responsibility might relate to evolution. Randy, might you inveigh the two-book perspective?
Permalink to this Comment }

Randall D. Isaac says...
Posted Friday, November 11, 2016
Thank you all for your most helpful comments. I have rewritten the essay in light of your comments. Carlos, I couldn't figure out how to include your perspective within the allotted space. It's too complex and nebulous for me to understand, much less express concisely.
Did I overdo it and address the evolutionary process too much? Did I leave out anything significant from the first pass?
(sorry, formatting gets lost in comments but you'll get the idea)

“What Are Human Beings That You Are Mindful of Them?”
Psalm 8:4
Randy Isaac
The effort to formally designate our current age as the Anthropocene Epoch can be seen as either a paean to humanity or as an expression of self-exaltation. The latter view considers each extant species to be a successful culmination of billions of years of evolution with no species having superiority. The former view sees our species as a distinctive species worthy of praise for its accomplishments.
The psalmist looks at the grandeur of the heavens, notes the moon and the stars, and exclaims how remarkable it is that God would be mindful of human beings, by comparison hardly worthy of note. Yet the psalmist continues with amazement that God “…made [human beings] a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet…” (Ps 8:5-6, NRSV)
The biblical perspective resonates with the scientific Anthropocene Epoch designation in at least two ways. First of all, the Genesis account of creation emphasizes that all plants, fish, and animals emanated from the land and sea. “God said, Let the earth bring forth vegetation…” (Gen. 1:11), “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…” (Gen. 1:20), and “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind…” (Gen. 1:24) Similarly, the creation account in Genesis 2 shows that “ … the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground…” (Gen. 2:7) and “…out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air…” (Gen. 2:19). The kinship between mankind and animals is also indicated by the prospect that animals might be a suitable helpmate for Adam, though each one falls short. The scientific understanding of the evolutionary process fills in the details and, like the biblical account, documents the same origin for humans as for animals. The adaptive development of life on earth led to a human species highly tuned for survival on earth.
Both the biblical and scientific accounts speak of the uniqueness of humans. God specifically gives humans the attribute of having the image of God. Adam is given the responsibility of naming the animals when assessing them for suitability as a mate. This implies a namer/named relationship in which humans have the ability to study and discern the characteristics of the animals. God also explicitly commands humans to have dominion over all creation, reflecting a responsibility and ability to care for all other species and their environment. Our scientific recognition that humans have a global impact, whether for good or for bad, shows how we cannot escape this responsibility. The designation of an epoch reflecting our impact on the earth is a powerful reminder that we are responsible for sustaining all life on earth. May we all do our part to nurture and care for our world.
Permalink to this Comment }

David E. Singer says...
Posted Sunday, November 13, 2016
Randy you nailed it -- you've addressed the question without loosing your original emphasis on human uniqueness and ecological responsibility.
Permalink to this Comment }

Abram Kielsmeier-Jones says...
Posted Wednesday, November 16, 2016
This comment may be a little afield of both the question you received and your response, but I am intrigued by the idea of naming you mention.

You wrote (in your revised version): “Adam is given the responsibility of naming the animals when assessing them for suitability as a mate. This implies a namer/named relationship in which humans have the ability to study and discern the characteristics of the animals.”

Your original version added: “The ancient practice of naming was not an arbitrary task of finding a pleasing word but an in-depth study of the characteristics of the one being named, assigning a name reflecting their nature. This is an indication that humans have evolved the ability and the mission of studying and understanding the nature of all species.”

One observation (with a question appended) and one slightly theological question:

Observation: I’ve been spending time with the Hebrew prophets this fall. A key characteristic of their public ministry is that they articulated (one might say *named*) reality to the people of God. Jeremiah lambasts the prophets who say, “Peace, peace,” where “there is no peace,” in part because it’s a denial (mis-naming) of reality. This is one reason lament is so important, because it tells the truth about (names) difficult reality, so that people at least have that much right as a starting point. And painting a picture of (naming) the far-off future (as in Isaiah 65) is an equally important task of the prophet. I might have thought this didn’t connect to naming in Genesis, but is it possible that naming or “study[ing] and discern[ing] the characteristics” of both animals and other humans is a primary task of humanity, not just for prophets, but for any human, since the beginning of creation? I also think about Jesus’ criticism in Luke 12: “How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?” He speaks almost as if interpreting/naming the “present time” is an expected task of humanity (or at least the ones he was talking to). The new insight for me in this is that the human responsibility to name reality doesn’t just trace back to the prophets (Joel 2 has all of us as prophets, in a sense), but perhaps even all the way back to Adam. Does this idea seem reasonable to you, or at least a conclusion that can properly follow from Genesis?

And then a related question: Is this responsibility and act of naming (however far it extends) part of what it means to be created in the image of God? Do you see a connection there?
Permalink to this Comment }

Randall D. Isaac says...
Posted Friday, February 10, 2017
In case anyone is interested, each of the members of the Broad Social Impacts Committee wrote an essay on the anthropocene. Click on any member and scroll down to see their essay. You can see it at:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/about/broader-social-impacts-committee/members-member-resources
Permalink to this Comment }