#760 I’m a Soul Man

Dr. craig’s response

This question came up during the panel discussion of my book In Quest of the Historical Adam at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological/Philosophical Society this year. A couple of panelists were confused by my statement that in order to determine the time of human origins we need to look for archaeological evidence indicative of modern cognitive behaviors like abstract thinking, planning depth, technological innovations, and symbolic thought. One panelist thought that I was saying that it was these behaviors that make us human. Another panelist thought that I was saying that these behaviors serve to define “human.” Both panelists were mistaken. Rather I look to these behaviors as evidence of humans.

It is not until the last chapter of the book that I explain what I think it is that makes us human or serves to define “human.” A human is an individual composed of a rational soul and a hominin body. I agree with you that a rational soul could be united with hominin bodies of various species (in fact, I think that they were!). So even though Neanderthals and Homo sapiens differ anatomically in some respects, still they were each human. By contrast a rational soul conjoined with the non-hominin body of an extra-terrestrial like a Klingon would not be a human person. He would, indeed, be a person but not a human person.

But even if we restrict our attention to hominins, it doesn’t follow that “therefore, it wouldn't seem to matter WHAT Adam was.” For in order for a hominin to have rational soul, it must have the neurological capacity, in particular the brain size and complexity, to support a rational soul. As the Nobel prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles used to put it, “The soul uses the brain as an instrument to think.” So Adam could not have been an Australopithecine, for example, due to its very tiny brain size. Australopithecines were just bipedal apes, not humans.

Neither is it plausible to say that Homo sapiens existed on this planet before God infused into one of its members a rational soul, making it the first human. Here the cognitive behaviors of which I spoke above come to bear. Since we cannot discern empirically a rational soul, we have to look for evidence of its presence in terms of these modern cognitive behaviors that are part of rational agency. Given the archaeological evidence concerning ancient man, whether Neanderthals or Homo sapiens, we must not introduce the soul too late into the process. To name just one example, it would be preposterous to think that the cave art at Lascaux or Chauvet was produced by animals.

So I would not agree with you that “the species of homo-sapiens and their predecessors could have, theoretically, existed on the Earth for any number of years before Adam was created, becoming the first 'man' because he was given a soul and as such differentiating him from the rest of God's creation.” Certainly the predecessors of Homo sapiens could have existed on earth for any number of years before Adam, but Adam, if he is to be the universal progenitor of mankind, could not have come on the scene after the arrival of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, for, given their cognitive capacities, they were doubtless human.