We can all argue about whether Jesus was a parthenogenetic being produced without physical insemination, and whether he became reanimated a few days after death, but getting direct evidence for those “miracles” is well-nigh impossible, and so we argue against them on the grounds of improbability. But there’s one bedrock of Abrahamic faith that is eminently testable by science: the claim that all humans descend from a single created pair—Adam and Eve—and that these individuals were not australopithecines or apelike ancestors, but humans in the modern sense. Absent their existence, the whole story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces.
Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.
Further, looking at different genes, we find that they trace back to different times in our past. Mitochondrial DNA points to the genes in that organelle tracing back to a single female ancestor who lived about 140,000 years ago, but that genes on the Y chromosome trace back to one male who lived about 60,000-90,000 years ago. Further, the bulk of genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years. This shows not only that any “Adam” and “Eve” (in the sense of mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA alone) must have lived thousands of years apart, but also that there simply could not have been two individuals who provided the entire genetic ancestry of modern humans. Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, as expected, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived.
These are the scientific facts. And, unlike the case of Jesus’s virgin birth and resurrection, we can dismiss a physical Adam and Eve with near scientific certainty.
But of course this causes much consternation for Christians—as it should for Jews, though they don’t make much noise about it. The Templeton-funded accommodationist organization BioLogos, founded by Francis Collins and dedicated to harmonizing evangelical Christianity with scientific truth, has been in a tizzy about Adam and Eve, publishing a lot of articles about how to reconcile the science with the Biblical claim that the pair was the ultimate source of human sinfulness. And that sinfulness, of course, is the reason why Jebus was so important.
A new BioLogos piece on Adam and Eve, written by president Darrel Falk, discusses the controversy and ways to harmonize these incompatible views. It uses as its starting point an interesting article in the latest Christianity Today, “The search for the historical Adam” (what about Eve?). You can access that article free online. I’d recommend reading both the 6-page Christianity Today article and Falk’s gloss on it, for both show, better than anything else, the problems that scientific data pose for Christianity—particularly American evangelical Christianity. The Christianity Today article poses the problem starkly:
So is the Adam and Eve question destined to become a groundbreaking science-and-Scripture dispute, a 21st-century equivalent of the once disturbing proof that the Earth orbits the sun? The potential is certainly there: the emerging science could be seen to challenge not only what Genesis records about the creation of humanity but the species’s unique status as bearing the “image of God,” Christian doctrine on original sin and the Fall, the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and, perhaps most significantly, Paul’s teaching that links the historical Adam with redemption through Christ (Rom.5:12-19; 1 Cor.15:20-23; and his speech in Acts 17.
Pastor Tim Keller, a participant in a BioLogos workshop on evolution and Adam and Eve held last November (!), says this:
“[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace work “covenantally’—falls apart. You can’t say that Paul was a ‘man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”
That, of course, is the whole problem about reinterpreting palpably literal parts of the bible as “metaphor” when science shows that they’re wrong. But given the inventiveness and deviousness of the theological mind, there is simply nothing that can’t be conveniently reinterpreted as a metaphor. I suppose that if we were to get evidence that Jesus either didn’t exist, was born after human copulation, or simply rotted in the tomb, that whole saga would also be reinterpreted as metaphor. But there are some stories so critical to Christian faith that many believers aren’t willing to see them as metaphorical. Jesus, of course, is one, but so is the tale of Adam and Eve.
The Christianity Today piece notes a couple of ways to deal with what seems to be an insuperable problem. All of them, of course, regard seeing Adam and Eve not as the literal parents of humanity, but as some kind of metaphor. Perhaps they’re just a metaphor for our inherent sinfulness (but I, for one, refuse to believe that I am just a primate born inherently sinful). Or perhaps there was a group of ancestors that could go under the metaphorical name of “Adam and Eve.” Alternatively, perhaps there was such a literal pair, but they were only the metaphorical ancestors of humanity. This last notion seems to be the position that most of BioLogos commenters have accepted. But in his piece, Falk emphasizes, once again, that the organization doesn’t have a consensus view on Adam and Eve:
The Christianity Today cover story is important because it engages the Church in one of the most important questions of all: was there a historical Adam and Eve? There has been much discussion of this point on these pages and although we strongly encourage ongoing discussion, BioLogos does not take a position on the issue.
BioLogos does not take a position? That is sheer intellectual cowardice. Of course there was no literal Adam and Eve: the genetic data show unequivocally that humanity did not descend from a single pair that lived in the genus Homo. And this organization—founded by Francis Collins, geneticist and bigwig in the Human Genome Project, won’t take that stand? I don’t know if BioLogos sees this, but this kind of equivocation on an absolute scientific fact makes the organization look ridiculous in the eyes of the rational. (I suppose accommodationist organizations like the National Center for Science Education don’t mind this inability to honestly accept modern science.)
Falk goes on to discuss the several ways to force Christian theology into the Procrustean bed of genetic facts, trying to claim that in some way Adam and Eve had a literal existence. The funniest suggestion is the “Federal Headship” model:
Although The BioLogos Forum has raised the issue and encouraged discussion, we also urge caution. The “Federal Headship” model that accepts the scientific findings while at the same time holding to the historicity of a real first couple has not yet been carefully worked out by theologians. The reason that we haven’t had many articles of that sort is because we haven’t been able to identify theologians who are looking at the question from that perspective.
What can you say to that except “LOL”? And Falk calls for the great minds of theology to work on this problem?! Elebenty! (What Falk means, of course, is he wants some slick person to make something up that allows for a historical First Couple while still accepting the genetic data):
The purpose of BioLogos is to show that there can be harmony between mainstream science and evangelical Christianity. We are in complete agreement with Richard Ostling (the author of the aforementioned article) and the Editors of Christianity Today that working through the historicity question is of the utmost importance to the Evangelical Church. Within the framework outlined above, it boils down to theology not science, and we urge the Church to reserve judgment for a while. Let’s keep both possibilities before us. Here’s hoping that some of our greatest theological minds will work on the question of what a model based on “Federal Headship” would look like. Here’s also hoping that some of our finest theologians will continue to work on how the view of a non-historical Adam would address some of the issues that puzzle and concern most evangelicals.
The last paragraph of Falk’s piece, which out of mercy I won’t quote here, is his usual lapsing into JesusSpeak.
The idea of the “greatest theological minds” working on this issue should make us laugh and cry at the same time. What a waste of human effort! But, in the end, this palaver about Adam and Eve shows the incompatibility between not only science and faith, but between BioLogos and true evangelical Christianity. No matter what those fine theological minds come up with, it will never be widely accepted among evangelical Christians. A literal Adam and Eve is an item too important to be seen as a metaphor, for it’s a bedrock of Christian faith. Falk and Collins should be ashamed of their organization’s involvement in such a stupid enterprise.
BUT. . . we can help them! Like Michael Ruse, let’s lend our brains—and our considerable expertise in theology—to this enterprise, so we can relieve these poor Christians of their burden. For an autographed paperback edition of WEIT, in one short paragraph propose your own theological solution:
What is the best way to reconcile the Biblical story of Adam and Eve with the genetic facts?
You cannot answer that these issues are irreconcilable; remember, you’re being a theologian who is trying to help the Christians, and so have to propose a solution that sounds superficially plausible. If possible, write it in theologyspeak, too, and try to give it a name as interesting as “The Federal Headship Model.” I’ll hold the contest open for a week, and then award the prize. Entries will be judged on how well they conform to modern and sophisticated theological thinking.
Here’s one – god created humankind with a fatal flaw, in that we love sex so much we can’t say no even when we have no ability to feed the offspring.
To try and fix his screw-up god then invented a whole book of ridiculous superstitious nonsense, in the hope that humankind would spend so much time arguing over how ridiculous the storybook was that they’d forget how good sex is.
And do not forget KILLING each other over interpretations of nuances of the fables in it that even if they have too much sex the offspring are wiped out anyway to maintain the ecological balance.
Adam and Eve were lovers who ran away, like Michael York and Jenny Agutter in Logan’s Run.
…can someone explain the logic behind the notion that because Adam & Eve are a metaphorical story, that it means there is no such thing as “original sin” and Jesus died for a metaphor?
If their story is a metaphor, I still see how the concept of “sin” could exist as a “real” thing for humanity (that’s at least what I expect Christians to say at least) and so Jesus died for what Adam and Eve represent, not what actually happened to them.
I’m not sure if this qualifies as an entry, but that would be my take (as others have stated) to spin it as a metaphor for the metaphysical existence of sin in our lives. The outward expression of “sin” in just the ‘spiritually bad fruit’ produced of our fallen nature…sin itself, like God, extends beyond the material framework we operate in and so no one gives a f##k if it actually happened to two literal people.
…I appeal to that which can not be (dis)proven.
“…can someone explain the logic behind the notion that because Adam & Eve are a metaphorical story, that it means there is no such thing as “original sin” and Jesus died for a metaphor? ”
yes.
original sin = original sinner.
otherwise, it wouldn’t be original.
“The outward expression of “sin” in just the ‘spiritually bad fruit’ produced of our fallen nature”
who fell first?
how?
“God, extends beyond the material framework we operate in”
and where’s the logic underlying that conclusion?
How about this idea: Historical Creationism (from “Genesis Unbound” by John Sailhamer)
“…Genesis 1 and 2 …both literal and historical. They recount2 great acts of God. In the 1st act, God created the universe we see around us:earth, sun,moon,stars,plants, animals. Biblical record of that act=Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth”. We don’t know how long he took, could have been billions of years or far less… The 2nd act starts with Gen 1:2, biblical narrative of God’s preparation of a land (specific area, same land later promised to Abraham, same land given to Israel after exodus from egypt) for the man and woman made in his image, which he would create next. Genesis 2 tells us that God made this man from the soil (2:7), and woman from man’s side (2:22)…making it quite clear that human beings have no biological antecedents…the first man and woman were genetically identical (2:23)(from same first body) When God made the woman, he did not have to breathe into her nostrils the breath of life because she was already alive from the life of the man…” Could this be why we don’t find so-called “different” female genetics till later?
actually, it rather looks like the female condition is the ancestral one.
“maleness” is what evolved later.
It occurs to me that the single female supposedly from 140,000 years ago from mitrochondrial dna supposedly could be the physical Eve, and the male of the Y chromosomes from 60,000 to 90,000 years ago might not the physical Adam, but could be the physical Noah.
Now we’ve got the problem of supposedly thousands of years discrepancies differing with a biblical account of under 1,000 years between Adam and Noah’s flood, but you also have people living very long periods of time compared to now, which if true, meant that there was something different with the genes.
Of course, a global flood “higher than Mt. Everest” is impossible for many scientific reasons, and if your protocol is that what we see today is pretty much how things were hundreds of thousands of years ago too in terms of atmosphere and topography and isotopic concentrations, the conclusions of a scientific impossibility make sense. However, Mt. Everest is rising (about 2 feet every ten years currently). At its current rate of rising, it would have been at sea level only 145,000 years ago. What if its rate of reaching for the heavens has slowed considerably? Then, maybe only 12,000 years ago, the mighty mountains of the earth we see today were under water or high hills. Possible, no? Hard to change our paradigm, but what is the evidence that tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago there were massive mountains visible? The Andes are rising considerably too, and “scientific” methods indicate that water trapped in higher elevations based on isotopic concentrations were from much lower elevations near sea level. How can this be? Okay, this contradiction doesn’t fit the scientific model, so there must be another explanation, because the biblical explanation must be rejected at all costs and the new and updated method of science invented and accepted. Fine.
We also have the population bottleneck(s). The author says the facts show a bottleneck in my Noah time period, as time is calculated with so called scientific means. If you are at all even handed in your scientific thinking, then human population doubling say every thousand years (from current data it is growing MUCH faster than that, but we want to leave plenty of room for bottlenecks) in just 40,000 years starting with only two people, you’d have over 1 Trillion (not billion) souls. What evidence is there that so many “bottlenecks” occurred in population growth? Where are all these people and evidence of people who had to have lived to give you all the gene diversity you say is needed? On the one hand you have 10,000 to 15,000 individuals retrospectively predicted from gene studies, but you’ve got no population growth with all these extra bodies around at least 50,000 years ago. Why not hundres of trillions of people then? No room for them? Maybe the doubling time is right, and the estimates are very far off, because an unknown factor relating to how the Earth was long ago is not understood properly today?
Just as the Catholic Church bigwigs beat up on Galleleo, it is also true that within the last 100 years, scientists have stated that it was impossible for a curve ball to curve, based on their data.
Now you know nothing of why all these people didn’t procreate effectively, and bottlenecks are readily accepted, but you reject out of hand that a big flood could have wiped them out with just a remnant preserved.
mb
“It occurs to me that the single female supposedly from 140,000 years ago from mitrochondrial dna supposedly could be the physical Eve”
that’s not what the term “mitochondrial eve” refers to.
since the rest of your post revolves around a similar misconception, I would suggest fixing that one first, before trying again.
“scientists have stated that it was impossible for a curve ball to curve”
next you’ll state that scientists claimed that bumble bees can’t fly?
never happened.
stop lying.
I am not lying. Some scientists are still staying that a curve ball does not break, but curves completely consistently throughout and what the batter sees is merely an optical illusion appearing to be a break to the batter.
I do not say not to consider physics, or any other branch of science.
Theoretically, science looks and sounds good, but there are other forces acting on the thrown ball besides gravity from the Earth and initial spin rotation and velocity. Theory does not perfectly transcend or explain physical or spiritual realities.
Galileo went looking for trouble in leaving his field of expertise as a layman theologically, and there were problems with his theory which his scientific contemporaries did not agree with. Some pretty savvy scientific people actually believe the church had the better science of the day. He believed the Sun was stationary, and everything else revolved around it, no?
It is my belief that a real person of science realizes his infinite capacity for ignorance, and very finite capacity for thorough understanding, but keeps on trying.
Any non-material forces? Or are you just saying that the physical forces acting on a thrown baseball are complex, and our understanding is currently incomplete but in principle able to capture its behaviour? Because I think that latter statement is pretty much accepted by everyone.
There are two extremes in the evolution vs. creationism confrontation that should be avoided on grounds of reason alone. The first is that, since evolution disproves the creationist claim that the human race descended from one particular man (Adam) and one particular woman (Eve), therefore the whole biblical story of human sin and redemption falls to pieces. I was taught in a Catholic grammar school—as early as I can remember—that the biblical account of Adam and Eve was a story, or myth similar to other creation myths, that conveyed the relationship between humanity and its creator, a relationship that has been borne out by the events of history. The Fall of Man—or Original Sin—was not formalized until the time of St. Augustine. Never was I taught, as a Catholic, that there is any discrepancy between evolution and my spiritual beliefs, except those that, perhaps if misused, discredited the dignity of human beings (eugenics, racial differences, mental deficiencies). Those holding this extreme belief think that religious believers are simpletons, or equivalently, that the religious belief of simpletons is representative of religious belief at any level.
The second extreme is that, since science is in conflict with some religious beliefs—for example, the religious belief of some that the earth is thousands instead of millions of years old—and since science advances via paradigms that can change, therefore (since God is assumed unchangeable) science is wrong. Basically, this says that since science can be in error (hypothesis testing is its very nature), and since religious truth is unalterable, that science is subservient to religion. Those holding this extreme belief are beyond persuasion.
If these extremes are to be avoided, then those arguing for the religious position must admit that much that is written in scripture (for example, St. Paul’s ideas of Adam and Eve) is simply wrong given our understanding of how humans originated. On the other hand, the those arguing for the secular position should realize that, despite the fact that our male and female ancestors lived thousands of years apart and had different ancestors, this proves nothing about the meaning of human life or its relationship to a Creator (for example, St. Paul’s metaphysical ideas about humanity’s salvation remain valid, whether or not Adam and Eve were specific individuals).
Let the discussion proceed in between these two extremes. I believe the result will be mutual enlightenment and mutual delight.
Woah there, cowboy!
Who and / or what is this “Creator” you write of and how do you know what you think you know about it?
Let’s get that bit settled before we go off discussing his haberdashery.
Cheers,
b&
Your comment, I think, proves my point (which perhaps could have been better stated): Who and what the Creator is (or was) is a different question than the reality of Adam and Eve’s physical existence (which has been disproven). In other words, whether or not there is a Creator is a metaphysical issue, and not a scientific one. My personal view of creation favors the ideas of Spinoza (and subsequently Einstein).
“since evolution disproves the creationist claim that the human race descended from one particular man (Adam)’
Actually, that has more to do with molecular and population genetics of humans being completely inconsistent with single origins.
it has nothing to do with evolution, per se.
if you’re going to argue for some kind of middle ground, at least stop trying to invent the middle ground you want to stand on.
“that there is any discrepancy between evolution and my spiritual beliefs”
then whoever taught you did a poor job of elucidating accepted catholic dogma.
the issue is simple:
what is the central tenent of the very purpose behind the existence, death, and resurrection of Christ, as stated by Catholic Dogma?
if christ did not die for our sins, then there is no original sin, and thus no original sinner.
thus the story of adam is not even useful as an allegory, and thus also the story of Jesus likewise is not even useful as an allegory.
the very core concept underlying xianity itself, let alone Cathalocism, crumbles.
your rationalizations do not change this very simple fact.
Thanks for your comment(s). Once again, if I may repeat myself. The issues you speak of, such as Christ dying for our sins, St Paul explaining salvation, etc. etc. are “metaphysical” issues, not scientific issues. Any scientific explanation of (legitimate) dogma is futile (and misplaced) because science and theology operate in different realms (the physical and the spiritual). One might as well try to scientifically prove or disprove why I believe the sunset is beautiful.
On the other hand, when dogma overreaches and tries to explain material processes that contradict the tenets of science, then it must be corrected or rejected.
The Catholic Dogma I holds resides in the two great commandments of Judaism–to love God and our neighbor. I apologize if that does not agree with your perception of what I should believe, but all metaphysical dogmas, in my humble view, must subject themselves to these.
…and lastly:
“mutual enlightenment ”
enlightenment implies useful knowledge
which useful, unique, knowledge does your concept of religion or a creator bring us, exactly?
what is applicable about it?
what does it explain? what does it allow us to predict?
somehow, I see the metaphysical contribution to this “middle ground” as being a bit on the… vacuous side.
Interesting questions, and I thank you again. My religious beliefs give meaning to my life, as they do to countless others. I agree wholeheartedly that any religious beliefs that lead to violence of any sort must end up in the dustbin of history. If the remaining religious views are eventually proven wrong as well, then at least they will have been part of the evolutionary process we are experiencing; at the very least, is it not amazing that we are nothing less that the elemental particles of the universe so arranged so as to contemplate the universe itself?
I do not presume to convince. I believe there is room for brotherhood, and enlightenment, and delight, in discussions about science and theology. Reason must prevail, on both sides of the issue.
Mostly, the primary forces are physical forces I suspect. But, there could be others too. I do not know, and do not know if knowing with certainty is possible. Does the presence of a batter simply present to swing, whether swinging or not swinging, affect the ball in flight? If swinging, then is there a physical force, at least in part, opposite that of the ball’s force? Do the thoughts of the batter physically have any affect on the ball in flight? Do the thoughts of the cather, or the movement of the catcher’s mitt affect the ball in flight? Are there complex wind patterns affecting the ball, such as the design of the stadium, the amount of buzz in the stands, even a jet plane flying overhead affect the ball in flight?
If the primary forces are so well understood by modern science regarding the throwing of a baseball, and the physical motions so predictable, given a measured release point, velocity, and direction of spin, then modern science should be able to build a mechanically and optically perfectly proficient machanical batter who always hits a ball pitched over the strike zone for a home run, every time, every strike pitch, no matter who was pitching to the mechanical batter.
My theory is that the mechanical man would make contact regularly with many foul balls, hitting a good amount of home runs, but also would strike out very often, despite the fact that it was never once fooled by the deception of the pitcher optically.
No.
Huh?
No.
No.
Possibly.
Next question?
I disagree substantially:
Yes. The ball is pushing air in front of it on its journey and so is the bat while swinging at it. Both the bat and the ball create a breeze. Air has mass and when you swing a bat through it, you displace some as does the ball traveling through it. Physically, when you sit in a chair, the ground pushes back an equal amount to your weight sitting in it, or you’d keep right on sinking into the earth.
Yes. The catcher is stirring the air when he moves his glove, causing air movement. Air movement affects ball traveling through that air movement. It takes longer to fly an airplane at normal cruising speed against the wind than with it, and if directional changes are not figured in, planes will be blown off flight path. Even a sniper shooting a high speed projectile (bullet) has to estimate wind influence. Air movement can affect both the ball when close and the batter swinging through it.
Maybe a little.
Maybe a little.
Yes. Baseball stadiums have peculiar wind patterns sometimes because of their design. On average home teams win more games than while on the road. Doesn’t the actual data over decades of seasons support the theory that the fan buzz in the stadiums affect the outcome of games — more rooting for the home team versus the traveling team affects the ball slightly giving the home teams a clear statistical advantage compared to their overall record? Why are other factors so readily accepted out of hand as the advantage without considering other physical possibilities, such as fan influence on the ball itself? What scientific evidence is there with these alternative theories? Not only are the home teams winning more, they are doing it with statistically fewer offensive innings at home, since they don’t have to bat in the ninth if they were already winning.
Doesn’t gravitational theory indicate an attraction between mass? Why not gravitation attaction playing some small role between the ball and the batter and the bat and the catcher and the catcher’s mitt? Must we dismiss gravitational theory altogether on here? If so, how can we accept the ball eventually falling back to earth again? Earth gravity only accounts for 100.00000% of all gravitational effects? How do you know this scientifically?
If it was as cut and dry as you seem to think, the great scientific minds ought to be able to build the mechanical batter who never misses a home run with any strike pitch and never swings at a ball either. My hypothesis is that science isn’t perfect enough with all of the minds and technology to date to even hit home runs all the time with a baseball in motion. But, I’m supposed to trust it completely when it comes to predicting when the earth came into being, and when man started walking around?
Science has its benefits, and its methods, its tools, and processes that are wonderful to think about and to aim to incorporate into study and to be beneficial, but it has its limitations, and it always will.
mb
Whatever limitations science has in understanding reality, these limitations are not better addressed by religion, superstition, appeals to the supernatural or any other kind of magical thinking. Such approaches might “feel” like “answers” to the indoctrinated, but they are likely to make it very difficult to understand the actual answers as they are discovered. Those who think rain dances cause rain are unlikely to delve into the finer points of meteorology.
Just because science cannot explain something sufficiently for you to understand, does not mean your “woo” is true any more than it means some conflicting faith or myth or New Age fairytale is true. Your explanations might make you feel more secure in your religious beliefs, but I doubt they have much bearing on those who really want to understand our origins nor do they have much bearing on those who don’t feel like their salvation depends upon them believing a certain creation story.
Science is not about understanding, it is about knowing, and is one way of knowing among many. Consider a grape. The farmer knows what a grape is. So does the connoisseur, the chemist, the poet and the broker. “How would it be desirable, necessary, or even conceivable,” asks Chastek, “to know even grapes by a single universal method or system?”
It isn’t even good science, when we consider the huge methodological gulf between biology and physics. When we have described in exquisite detail the physics of vibrating string, acoustics, and so forth, have we “understood” Beethoven’s Waldstein Sonata?
The Adam and Eve myth isn’t even about the origin of species, but rather about the origin of sin; so there is no more a conflict than between musical composition and culinary arts.
Consider the lily:
Genesis 1: 26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
Notice that a literal interpretation of these verses indicates the plurality of God. US, OUR, OUR. Whoever God IS, and however HE did it, HE was a WE when it came to creating man, according to the creation account. Hence, you have intrinsic built in genetic diversity in the making of Adam and Eve. The creation account doesn’t say how God did it, how plural God is, except that man was made from the dust of the ground initially, and that the finished product is made in the image of God, with built in traits demonstrating the plurality of God, since the makers were plural, acting in unison as one Creator, making man in His image.
No reconciliation is necessary.
mb
Yeah we know all about theological math… god is 3 beings in one… except not really because he’s no being at all… because he’s immaterial and indistinguishable from a mythological entity… except that he becomes a singular when Christians want to think of themselves as monotheistic… but he’s a jealous god and wants you to have no other gods before him so there might be lots of them… only many say there is only one god and that “everyone prays to the same god”… or maybe not, because Muslims think it’s blasphemous to refer to Jesus as that god. Jesus the god the god of the old testament per trinitarian beliefs– and also his son!
Confused? It’s just all part of the mystery– who are you to think you can understand God?
I think the evidence is pretty clear that all gods (and other invisible/divine/magical beings) are inventions of the human mind.
I don’t see it that way at all.
God demonstrates pluralistic attributes in the scriptures, but is ONE Lord. I don’t know if there are only three attributes of the Divine God or more, because the scriptures speak of the seven spirits of God. Early scriptures actually say Holy (7x) and not (3x). Trinity as a word does not exist in the Bible. There is also imagery in scriptures of four living beings with the faces of a Man, an Ox, an Eagle, and a Horse. However diverse God is, maybe with just three and maybe more personifications, He is plural in attributes and personifications, yet, He is still one Lord and the scriptures say this clearly.
The point I was making was that a literalist from the scriptures has built in diversity in the creation of man. The scriptures do not say how God did it, except that man was made from the dust of the ground.
One problem I have with the genetic timeline is the assumed generational periods. Though the genes point to many generations, what looks like a generation, may merely have been a minute as man measures time in God’s Petri dish in the process of making Eve and not 30 years or so per generation as we measure time today. Hence, it is possible that Eve (looking older because there is more generations) is younger than Adam, though she looks older.
The scriptures have God taking a rib from Adam to make Eve. So, one possibility here is that God made a species dna extraction, followed by God’s intervening genetic changes on an accelerated basis in God’s Petri dish. Though it looks from the genes that a generation took thirty years or so, you may have had 100 such Petri dish generations in an hour as humans measure time, and that some of the genes never lived outside the Petri dish. Likewise, you have Adam’s genetic makeup being formulated in God’s diverse Petri dish. Likewise, you’ve got other genetics of the species (created before Man was) made in God’s Petri dish before the little fishes ever swam around in the sea.
So, you’ve got a diverse God (greatest biologist team ever) creating diverse creatures much more quickly than it seems based on what a generation takes living it out, for the simple reason that God’s Petri dish is a paradigm outside linearly thinking geneticists. God’s ways are higher. It is that simple, though God’s ways are infinitely complex in man’s eyes, and cannot understand it. A lot of the ancient genes science is looking at could have happened in God’s lab in a short period of time, and the genes never even walked around in human beings (or swam around in the case of fishes) until God was done perfecting them in the lab.
The simple science is valid based on its assumptions, but its ancient conclusions are wrong chronologically because God doesn’t need thirty years to make a generation’s worth of genes in a man, or a fish, or a bird. It only takes a minute or so in God’s Petri dish.
All is well.
To paraphrase that profound theological thinker, James Tiberius Kirk, “What does God need with a rib?” Or “a species dna extraction”, for that matter? Isn’t your god supposed to be omnipotent? Why is it then extracting DNA, when instead it could just poof a female homo sapien into existence?
Honestly, would you even come up with this profoundly convoluted ad hoc justification if the science were different? Isn’t this just special pleading, designed to prop up a story that bronze age sheep herders told each other around their campfires?
Why is [God] then extracting DNA, when instead [he] could just poof a female homo sapien [sic] into existence?
Doctrine since at least the days of Augustine of Hippo was that God had endowed material bodies with natures, and these natures were capable of acting directly upon one another; and that they did so in a lawful manner [“the common course of nature.”] Collectively, these beliefs were called “secondary causation.”
This was a primary reason why natural science emerged in Christendom and not in the House of Submission (where occasionalism was the rule after the ash’ari aqida overcame the mu’tzalites) and in China (where concatenation was the rule after Confucianism overcame the Moists).
Compare this sentiment:
“We believe [rain] is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.”
— Mohammed Yusuf
with this:
IOW, species were brought forth by the powers inherent in nature “from the beginning.” They do not “poof.”
+ + +
a story that bronze age sheep herders told each other around their campfires?
Ah, the “ignorant Jews” theory.
Of course, it does not occur to a late or post-modern to wonder if an ancient text might have been about something other than the concerns of the late and post-modern ages.
You’re not arguing with me, but with Mike Benner, since he’s the one suggesting that his god worked outside of the “the powers inherent in nature”. Although I must say it is refreshing to see you argue for what is essentially Deism.
So you’re going to resort to naked accusations of anti-Semitism? I said absolutely nothing about this being solely restricted to Jewish bronze age sheep herders. Heck, the biological and cosmological understanding of the Egyptians of this period was no better — it’s just that these days no one uses their theology to run their lives and the lives of others. You’re merely deflecting the issue with a cheap and nasty rhetorical device. It is really unbecoming of you.
I must say it is refreshing to see you argue for what is essentially Deism.
Actually, it’s not. The argument was made and accepted by Christians in the Late Roman Empire (cf. Augustine or the Alexandrian catechatical school) and taught during the Middle Ages (cf. just about anyone from Adelard of Bath through Nicholas of Cusa, and the Thomist tradition). It is one of the Questions addressed in Thomas’ Summa theologica, whether matter has seminal powers (seminal meaning inborn or natural). Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox Church (which didn’t get as much into the syllogism thingie) taught an Age-of-Reason Deist God.
That’s true historically, but the actual content of the claim is that your god works through the “powers inherent in nature from the beginning”. That sure sounds like Deism to me (and sure sounds like it rules out miracles, since those are violations of those inherent original powers).
Oh, COME ON.
You’re going to compare Augustine to Yusuf?
you really think that makes ANY SENSE?
you’re a dishonest hack.
you’re a dishonest hack.
Ah, the joys of rational discourse among the cult of the cerebral. Somehow – perhaps by divine revelation – you know this.
You’re going to compare Augustine to Yusuf?
Unfair, I know. Gus was a big brain, and I doubt the same could be said of Yusuf. So, how about al-Ghazali:
“…our opponent claims that the agent of the burning is the fire exclusively;’ this is a natural, not a voluntary agent, and cannot abstain from what is in its nature when it is brought into contact with a receptive substratum. This we deny, saying: The agent of the burning is God, through His creating the black in the cotton and the disconnexion of its parts, and it is God who made the cotton burn and made it ashes either through the intermediation of angels or without intermediation. For fire is a dead body which has no action, and what is the proof that it is the agent? Indeed, the philosophers have no other proof than the observation of the occurrence of the burning, when there is contact with fire, but observation proves only a simultaneity, not a causation, and, in reality, there is no other cause but God.”
— The Incoherence of Philosophy
Or ibn Khaldûn:
“The problems of physics are of no importance for us in our religious affairs or our livelihoods; therefore we must leave them alone.”
Are they heavy-weight enough? Al-Ghazali was perhaps the single most influential thinker of the Ash’ari aqida. Ibn Khaldûn was also pre-eminent in philosophy and history. To this day, in Jordan, keeping books on natural philosophy and other topics in your home will be viewed with suspicion by pious neighbors.
Or do you object to the doctrine of secondary causation? That is simply historical fact. See Edward Grant’s God and Reason in the Middle Ages or Toby Huff’s The Rise of Early Modern Science: China, Islam, and the West for some background.
Look, I don’t need to explain why God used dust to make Adam and a rib from Adam to make Eve. God didn’t poof either into existence. According to the scriptures, he made them both out of material He’d already made.
My reconcilation theory is that not only was Adam the first actual human, but the first test tube baby.
Once Adam (Very goodly made according to God) was finalized, why would God start all over with new DNA from scratch? He took a little rib DNA, zipped through a few hundred or more generations in the Petri dish until that was very good too, and then Eve came along shortly afterwards.
This idea that God is lazy, not too bright, ineffecient when working on something, and sits around when there is work to do is more akin to Captain Kirk than my notions.
The point is that everything we see in the genes did not necessarily have to be lived out in beings taking thirty years. You don’t have to like it, just as I don’t have to like the initially inexplicable gene diversity with mitochondrial Eve, based on everyone tested so far, which is far from everyone alive.
Your criteria for labelling something “poofing” are obviously stricter than mine — taking inanimate dirt and magicking into life with organs and blood and skin and bones is pretty much “poofing” in my book. The fact that your god used some dust that it had previously poofed into existence (I think we can agree that the label applies there) is really irrelevant to me.
Um, because your god is supposed to be omnipotent, and thus all actions are as one to it — there is nothing “easier” or “simpler” about using a rib, since your god supposedly can just will literally anything to happen.
So your god falsifies the appearance of the universe? Effectively lies to humanity? Nice guy…
No, I don’t think God falsifies the appearance of the universe, and there is nothing deceitful about God.
Because man does not understand something does not mean God is deceiving him.
For instance, because we can detect stars tens of thousands, even millions of light years away from earth, we conclude that the starlight we see on Earth was in motion through space millions of years ago (Otherwise, How could we see the light from the stars?) Logical in man’s eyes since the stars are a million light years away or more, since we know what the speed of light is. It is a constant and it is supposedly impossible for anything to move faster than the speed of light. The math works. So case closed, right?
God’s ways are higher.
We can see the light from stars currently a million light years away from us much more quickly than in one million years. It is not that we can’t do math, but a simple matter of God’s methods being superior and more efficient. In other words, man presumes observations to be unchangeable facts, but presumes wrongly.
God’s ways are higher, much higher.
So, just to be clear, you think the speed of light is not constant?
And, I presume, you are a Young Earth Creationist, since pretty much only such folk get worked up about the speed of light connecting with the age of the universe. Am I correct?
I have no idea what this means, and I strongly suspect you don’t either.
My reconcilation theory
that’s not a theory.
It’s not even an hypothesis.
hell, it’s not even a coherent idea.
not sure what to call it except bullshit?
Does anyone know where the actually research is that deals with this article? Not saying that it is not factual research but it helps to see and learn about it rather than read an abstract. . K Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
You can click on the peer reviewed articles are in the references for further information (some you might have to pay for or to look at at a library that subscribes.)
I thought the point of the exercise was to seek to reconcile Science with Scripture — specifically the Adam and Eve of mitrochondrial and chromosomal lineage which science predicts must necessarily have lived in different time periods, with the Genesis account.
reconcile … the Adam and Eve of mitrochondrial and chromosomal lineage which science predicts must necessarily have lived in different time periods, with the Genesis account.
That’s quite simple. Even when read by naive-literalists, the account does not insist that the progenitive couple were necessarily the aforesaid mitrochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. Surely, Adam and Eve had ancestors and their sundry mitochondria and chromosomes were inherited from them.
Thomas Aquinas wrote that “original sin” [that is the “origin” of sin} was passed on by “the semen” from generation to generation and cited examples of inherited characteristics as analogies. They didn’t know about “genes” back then, but this was a remarkably close guess. And since he identified the origin of sin with concupiscence, it would be fair to call his guess that of a “selfish gene.” He thought it was a weakness in human nature to which all were subject, rather than an offense committed by a particular person.
The other interesting thing is that there is nothing in doctrine that requires disbelieving in other ancestors. Even the Bible, for those who read like fundies, tells us that the children of Adam found wives. How could they do this if there were no others? Perhaps even 9,998 others.
The quantifer shift fallacy is between:
A. “There is one man from whom all humans are descended.”
and
B. “All human beings are descended from [only] one man.”
Doctrine requires belief in the former, not the latter.
Hope this helps.
Are you seriously claiming that “original sin” or “ensoulment” is passed on genetically? Do you think god tweaked the DNA of the those imperfect creations who failed his little test (as any omniscient being would surely know they would) and that this DNA and/or the expression of it can be detected, mutated, duplicated, deleted,and passed on like all other DNA? Or is it magically hidden and protected?
Do you think Adam and Eve suddenly became homozygous for the “sin” trait so that god could ensure all their descendents would inherit it? Why wouldn’t he just tweak their DNA like he did with the “original sinners” or whatever it is he did when they failed his little test? Or maybe god was working his magic when he ensured the “original sin” trait didn’t die out when Adam and Eve’s descendants mated with their distant cousins who didn’t have the trait. Or did Adam and Eve inherit their original sinning genes from their ancestors like they did their other genes –in which case god could work his magic to ensure that all future peoples’ were homozygous. But then we’d want to see which genes that we have that Neanderthals don’t unless they were included in the whole story too. You don’t seem to have given this much thought.
Do you know how “selfish genes” work? The gene would code for something that preferentially allows the organism holding it to passed it on. It doesn’t mean that the organism possessing it would be selfish. If a gene colored an organism so it was better camouflaged, for example, that organism might be less noticeable to predators and more successful in hunting then others– and thus, live to pass on the gene that helped it out. This would also be true with genes that enhanced the sex drive or made a creature more likely to have mating opportunities too. Your religion seems to have confused you on this issue if you think Aquinas made a “remarkably close guess”. He didn’t. You just don’t understand genetics as well as you think you do.
What a bizarre god you are forced to believe in in order to make your faith align with the facts.
What excuses do you give for your god knowingly coming up with such a lame plan when he’s omnipotent? Also, why the Jesus thingie if he was omniscient and knew how things would turn out? If he can make perfect people like Jesus– why not just do that in the first place? And how in the world do you reconcile all this with a benevolent god worthy of worship? I’m no god, but even I recognize the immorality in punishing infinitely for finite misdeeds –as well as the immorality of holding people responsible for the misdeeds of ancestors or making one person pay for the sins of others. Your religion seems to have made you willing and eager to justify the unjustifiable.
I guess you gotta do what you gotta do to keep the faith… lest you suffer the consequences, eh?
(Also, when you repost, use the same name; I think sock puppets are illegal around here.)
Are you seriously claiming that “original sin” or “ensoulment” is passed on genetically?
No, I am simply reporting that Aquinas considered such characteristics as a generalized tendency toward X to be in some fashion heritable, and that among them he included the general human tendency toward selfishness known as “original sin.”
This has nothing to do with whatever you mean by “ensoulment.”
+ + +
Do you think god tweaked the DNA of the those imperfect creations who failed his little test …?
There is nothing magic about genetics, although there may be things hidden, in the sense of “not yet manifest.” According to traditional belief, God is the author of natural law, so there is no reason to tweak anything.
+ + +
Or did Adam and Eve inherit their original sinning genes from their ancestors like they did their other genes
An animal’s behavior is not selfish in the moral sense, because being unable to conceptualize, it has no knowledge of good and evil and so cannot choose to turn away from the good. In the sense of a genetic “groundwork,” your suggestion has some merit.
+ + +
we’d want to see which genes that we have that Neanderthals don’t unless they were included in the whole story too.
Michael Shermer suggested in his collection of skeptical articles, Science Friction, that Neanderthals were animals, given that their toolkit changed very little for the whole term of their existence. This is more like instinctual behavior than intellection.
+ + +
Do you know how “selfish genes” work?
Yes. Survivors survive and humans retroactively find some adaptive benefit to explain their survival. However, Dr. Dawkins, in his book of that name, deliberately equivocated on the term and very clearly intended human selfishness until more accomplished philosophers pressed him on it, whereupon he retreated temporarily to a mere technical description of how survivors survive.
+ + +
If a gene colored an organism so it was better camouflaged…
I am inclined to agree with you that evolution is teleological, but many materialists, like Fodor, disagree vehemently.
+ + +
I’m no god…
No foolin.
I recognize the immorality in punishing infinitely for finite misdeeds
Do you suppose that an attempted assassination of, say, the president of the US would be dealt with more severely than the attempted murder of Ye Olde Statistician? As regards punishment, in addition to the seriousness of the offense, one takes account of the status of the one offended. Besides, the punishment is self-inflicted, as it requires a persistent and willful turning away from the good.
+ + +
holding people responsible for the misdeeds of ancestors
Actually, if you followed the reasoning, this is not the case. It was that the original turning away from the good was something that was human nature, insofar as humans have a rational form, and nor merely a sensitive form. That was the part where, lacking a term for “genome,” Thomas described original sin as the transgression of the human species, qua species; that is, where all humans were considered as if “one man.”
+ + +
making one person pay for the sins of others.
In traditional theology, that would be regarded as a sin against justice. But to recognize a sin against justice you would first have to recognize an absolute morality in which justice was one of the seven cardinal virtues. Etc. etc.
+ + +
when you repost, use the same name; I think sock puppets are illegal around here.
I was not aware of using a different name, but a search revealed that I had inadvertently signed on once with a different screen name. My apologies.
Wow, has your faith twisted your understanding of genetics. Look, I understand that you “need” to believe because you fear a “loving” god who will punish you forever if you don’t believe, but I’m still going to try and give you a tad of a clue in case you ever are actually interested in what science has discovered. Also, I realize there are others who may read these words and they might benefit even if you cannot.
First of all, although each theist imagines that theists of their “brand” are getting their morality from god, the evidence shows that everyone’s “god” seems to think exactly what they think:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/01/0908374106.abstract
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/#more-740
Moreover, whenever we attempt to measure morality (using homicide rates, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc), atheists perform as well or better than their theistic counterparts. So though each theist imagines themselves more moral than those who don’t believe as they do –and presume that their morality comes from god– they don’t agree with each other and according to brain scans, their morality is coming from a voice in their head that they, then, call “god”.
This explains sects, holy wars, different translations and interpretations better than an omnipotent being who could have been clear because he was omnipotent (and who should have known that his creations would be failures due to his omniscience.)
And whatever morality is, theists don’t seem to have any more of it than anyone else by any measurable means– so belief in invisible universe creators is clearly not necessary for morality. Moreover, if there were an objective morality from some invisible guy– theists have no clue what it is, but they all imagine that their particular morality comes from such a being! Even Fred Phelps. And radical Muslims. And those doing honor killings. And those persecuting people they think are “witches”.
You are still terribly confused about the selfish gene. Organisms don’t survive and then get explained… they survive because the information that built them (DNA) built an animal that lived long enough and had what it takes to pass on it’s genes to the next generation who had a chance to do the same. There really is nothing teleological in this unless you believe in a super cruel god who could poof creatures into and out of existence, but instead just watches as most life forms become food for other life forms without ever passing on any genes at all. Camouflage is not teleological. It’s just that if you are an albino or don’t blend in– you become food and die… or maybe you can’t catch prey because you are too easily spotted, etc. In Africa, albinos are thought to be cursed and are witches– http://news.discovery.com/human/canadian-man-fights-african-witchcraft-murders.html All the prayers in the world don’t help because it’s your holy book that advised “thou shall not suffer a witch to live”. So, albinos are less likely to pass on genes. So are homely people. And people without a sex drive. And people who die in childhood because they were born in an area where there were parasites and diseases (presumably created by a god who preferred the survivor of parasites over his human creations in many cases.)This seems to be a very cruel “design” if you ask me. Your god’s overpopulation control plan appears to involve disease, starvation,fighting, and death in infancy.
Evolution is very easy to understand, but theists seem to have a particularly difficult time understanding this simple concept– and I think that is because you guys “need” to believe in god. You can’t let yourself understand because you know that understanding threatens your faith: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evolution-threatens-christianity/2011/08/24/gIQAuLVpbJ_blog.html But all the faith and excuses in the world cannot make your 3-in-1 deity real… it can, however, keep you from understanding some of the coolest things we humans have discovered. Although, it’s humbling to realize humanity is not the reason for the universe, it’s pretty amazing to be able to revel over the fact that we, alone among the life on our planet, can understand how we came to be.
Theists imagine they understand evolution, but when they talk about it, it’s clear they are very very confused due to their need to keep the faith. But I understand… and you are old… so maybe it’s best that some believers keep themselves confused on the subject. I understand why the Biologos folks want to make their faith align with the facts; they don’t want to consider that their supernatural beliefs might be as wrong as the supernatural beliefs they reject. It’s too frightening for them to examine this possibility. And so many have to pretend that faith and facts are perfectly compatible.
I want to add that I find it quite immoral that theists like you can justify eternal torment for a finite crime. I think this is vile. And if the god you believe in is the god of the bible (the one that sends bears to maul 42 children for calling a guy bald), then you have learned to justify a monstrosity and to see it as good– the work of a beneficent human being even. I blame your faith for this. It appears all manner of immoral things can be justified by religion. I also submit, that any human who acted like the god of the bible would rightly be considered a monster by the majority– not a moral guide. If someone had a bear maul your kid or decided to make your kid suffer forever because they didn’t believe the right unbelievable story or asked you to kill your kid as a loyalty test, I don’t think the excuses you make for your god would fly.
Thankfully, most theists are more moral than the gods they claim to get their morality from.
It appears that you need no evidence at all to confirm what you imagine yourself saved for believing, but simple information and evidence regarding evolution gets twisted or won’t compute when it threatens your faith.
I don’t know what it is you think humans are inheriting from “Adam”– and I don’t think you really know either. Yeah, yeah– “sin”– but by what mechanism? What exactly is “sin” and how is it inherited and why didn’t the other humans around at the time have it and wouldn’t it be better not to inherit such a thing if it leads to the possibility of eternal torture? Wouldn’t it be better never to be born than to be born with the possibility of suffering forever for not passing the right nebulous rubric? How is Aquinas making a “good guess”? What do you think of Allah’s plan to send people to hell for worshiping Jesus as a god? Do you think this makes Allah less moral than the god you believe in? Does anyone but you understand what you are talking about? Does anyone but you think that your faith is helping with your morality– To me, it looks like it’s training you to justify the unjustifiable in order to maintain faith in a being who isn’t very likely to exist– exactly like those believer in religions/cults/superstitions you reject.
There really is nothing teleological in this
Of course there is. That was Fodor’s complaint, and Fodor is an atheist. He did not understand Aristotle’s telos, and I suppose neither do you.
Without telos, there would be no natural laws, period. Unless there is something in A that “points toward” B, there would be no reason why A should cause B “always or for the most part.
a super cruel god who could poof creatures into and out of existence, but instead just watches as most life forms become food for other life forms
a) What is “bad” about life “forms” becoming food for other life “forms.” Kindness to the lamb is cruelty to the lion.
b) When Thomas Aquinas wrote of the origin of species in passing, he wrote:
“Species, also, that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.” Now “the powers which the stars and elements received at the beginning” are precisely their natural powers; and if by putrefaction we include mutation, we aren’t too far off the mark. Noting that God had commanded the earth and the sea to bring forth the living kinds, Augustine concluded in the long ago that matter itself had seminal powers inherent to it. This doctrine of secondary causation became standard in Christendom and forms the basis of natural science. In traditional Christian doctrine species do not “poof” into existence.
Camouflage is not teleological.
Fodor’s complaint was that it must be. If it is not teleological, then it isn’t camouflage, it’s only white fur. [He was using the polar bear as an example.] Despite pious mouthings about how telos isn’t there, camouflage does in fact work “always or for the most part” toward the end of concealment. Otherwise, natural selection wouldn’t work as a natural law.
+ + +
Organisms don’t survive and then get explained… they survive because the information that built them (DNA) built an animal that lived long enough and had what it takes to pass on it’s genes to the next generation
As soon as you say “information” you are invoking teleology, because a cascade of identical material particles have no information content as such. Consider the following pattern on your screen:
H
There is nothing in the matter that requires it to represent the sound “en” (if it’s Cyrillic) or “aitch” (if it’s Latin) or even the cross-section of an I-beam. Information does not inhere in the matter itself. Hence, there is no way of telling from the DNA what will or will not be “advantageous.” Only after the fact of reproductive success can it be so judged. That’s why Kimura’s theory of evolution – neutral selection – may count as much or more than so-called natural selection.
Furthermore, living things have a drive to go on living; and this results in creatures seeking out uses and environments to exploit their own traits. Thus, a panda with a protruding wrist bone that learns how to strip bamboo with it gives the appearance that the protruding wrist bone (the false “thumb”) is “advantageous.” It is incautious at best to consider the niche as permanent. (That’s why an Aristotelian theory of evolution would be far more complete.)
+ + +
it can, however, keep you from understanding some of the coolest things we humans have discovered.
Not really, considering that those cool things were largely discovered in Western Christendom. In fact, three Key Kool Things in modern science were heliocentrism (Copernicus, a canon), genetics (Mendel, a monk), and the Big Bang (Lemaitre, a priest). So it does not appear to have gotten in their way all that much.
You have a much better case with Islam, which fell victim to the occasionalism of the Ash’ari aqida, esp. al-Ghazali. Best exemplified by the recent statement:
We believe [rain] is a creation of God rather than an evaporation caused by the sun that condenses and becomes rain.
— Mohammed Yusuf
whereas William of Conches wrote back in the 12th cent.
[They say] “We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.” You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.
+ + +
I don’t know what it is you think humans are inheriting from “Adam”
A genome.
“sin”– but by what mechanism?
Thomas thought it might be by genetic inheritance, but also because all men participated in human nature.
What exactly is “sin”
A deficiency in a good. cf. Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics.
why didn’t the other humans around at the time have it
What other humans? Oh, you must mean the other 9,999 hominids, who were bodily identical but lacked the mutation that enabled conception and volition, i.e., the rational form. It seems unlikely that the necessary mutation, whatever it may have been, would have occurred simultaneously in 10,000 different hominids of the same generation. The mind leaves no fossils.
wouldn’t it be better not to inherit such a thing?
Maybe so, but it’s too late for that. It seems to have been a direct consequence of free will. You may think it better not to have a free will; but then you may be one of those compelled by the forces of physics to believe he has no will. In which case, you cannot help but answer as you do.
Such cruelly incompetent gods it is whose altars you bow down before! All-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving…and, yet, not a one of them can think of any other way for the lion to draw sustenance than by eating alive the lamb, or for the herd to itself avoid the starvation of overpopulation than by being eaten alive by the lions.
Were your gods under the jurisdiction of any Western government, they would be imprisoned for many years for cruelty towards animals. Upon release, a condition of probation would be absolute avoidance of all contact with any animal whatsoever.
You dare preach your “morality” towards us, declare it to flow from such filth as you worship! Even Michael Vick is a paragon of virtue compared to the least of your gods. He, at least, acknowledges his crimes and willingly engages in active and productive atonement for them. Your gods do naught but make pareidolic cameos on burnt toast and dog butts.
Grow up, little boy. Your imaginary friends are not worthy of anybody’s company.
Cheers,
b&
I don’t think you can have free will with an omniscient deity either… How could you do other than he’d already know you would do? And it would be evil to make people whom you knew in advance would be suffering forever because of the choices you knew they’d make. What would be the point unless you were a sadist? If your invisible buddy is exists and is omniscient, he’s made himself unworthy of worship by anyone except the most brainwashed (which he’d have known about, of course… no need to flood the earth or premeditate the murder of his son… or make a hell– if he’s omnipotent he could have just poofed his mistakes out of existence just like he poofed them in.) Of course I’m not the one trying to make myths make sense.
I think free will is incoherent though when I was a theist I sort of believed in it. But I was more rational than you. Do you think the priestly pedophiles CHOOSE to be attracted to kids? And don’t you think molesting children is immoral even though the bible god never mentioned and in fact seems to endorse it in passages: “They waged war as god had commanded them and killed every male. But they kept the women as captives and took their wealth as spoil. Moses was enraged. ‘So you spared the women? Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse and kill every little boy, but keep the virgin girls for yourself. Divide them up evenly.'” Num. 31:7, 14 How do you know this is immoral or do you think it’s perfectly moral since your objective moral giver seems a-ok with it? — At least he is per the magical book you think God wrote or inspired, right? What excuse do you give him for allowing that passage to stay in. He’s omnipotent, right– so why allow passages that an omniscient god would know would lead to horrors?
Is there anything you could not be persuaded to do if you were persuaded to think that your eternity hinged upon it? Can your brain make anything “moral” so long as god does it or asks it or says it– or, at least, you BELIEVE he did? If so, congratulations. You understand the Inquisitors and the Nazis. You can do immoral things while imagining yourself more moral than everybody who doesn’t believe as you do. You can even imagine you are going to live happily ever after for doing so!Just like him: http://www.deceptology.com/2011/09/what-compelled-him-to-kill. You can’t prove he wasn’t talking to god– and you believe that god communicates with mortals… god works in mysterious ways… how do you know this isn’t one of them? Doesn’t your god want you to prove your faith and how can you prove your faith other than by doing something you’d never do if you didn’t believe god commanded it?
The bible passage above shows that your god is fine with child slaughter on some occasions– along with slavery, misogyny, and stoning for not keeping the Sabbath day holy– and he doesn’t command people not to rape or torture– these didn’t make the top ten “thou shall nots”, so I guess that’s okay too per your “objective morality” so long as your objective moral giver doesn’t command against it, right? As long as the voice in your head commands it, you can tell yourself it’s coming from god! Or maybe you are just one of those believers who would do vile things if you weren’t afraid of being punished forever… in which case, for the sake of humanity, I encourage to delude yourself as need be. The rest of us don’t need magic books to guide us on such topics.
I was going to link you to this talk of Dawkins because it’s very good and I thought that maybe even you could get a clue that there is no teleology in things like camouflage… there’s just death to those who haven’t got the genome needed to survive and pass on the genes in the genome. It’s not very nice, but nature doesn’t have the goal of niceness. It doesn’t have any goal at all. I don’t think you can get a clue; you imagine you know more than those who might give you one. You think you understand evolution better than those who teach it. But others can learn: http://richarddawkins.net/videos/642753-richard-dawkins-at-the-university-of-maryland and this talk is excellent– so I wanted to post it for anyone else who might stumble upon these words in the future.
I was raised with religion and I tried to make sense of that nuttiness for years. I was never as good at lying to myself as you are. I had to stop thinking about the subject to keep a modicum of faith, but I couldn’t stop thinking for very long. Like many other rational people, I concluded that the scientific facts made much more sense than trying to believe in any god… any god who uses evolution to bring about species is cruel, slow, wasteful, and unneeded– not to mention prurient since who else would be interested in flower sex and insect sex and octopus sex all those years before humans came on the scene and all those incidence when no human is watching?
I think religion is really dangerous because it makes people feel like they “know” something they do not “know” at all while keeping those same people ignorant and afraid of the truth and those who would share it. Religionists give their allegiance to people who claim to know things they cannot know and denigrate those who would show them the evidence that would could deprogram them. I look forward to a time when the majority of humanity doesn’t believe in invisible beings– whether they call them gods, demons, souls, incubi, or fairies. Then they won’t be forced to utilize their brain power to try and make lies into “higher truths” for fear that their “soul” will suffer forever for not having faith. I think it’s crazy when the Muslims spread this meme and crazy when the Christians spread it– though I can see why this is a “selfish meme” that easily propagates itself in the human vector. Chain letters work on a version of this meme– but the stakes are higher in religion. Religions tells you you have an immortal soul that will suffer forever unless you believe: (insert unbelievable creation myth)–Or in the case of Scientology, it’s only billions of years of suffering– which is not even a fraction of eternity.
Humans didn’t get a genome from “Adam”– we’d have gotten half of a genome… and that would be a quarter of his 2 parents genome and an 8th each of his 8 grandparents genomes and so on back in time until they started being the same people– so I want to know where is the part that comes in that Jesus had to die for? Or did Jesus die for a metaphor? Did Jesus-god know in advance that this was going to be the plan before he made the universe– or billions of year later when he made earth… or billions of years after that when he started directing the evolution of some of his primates… or was it after the “original sinners” sinned metaphorically or whatever?
Is Jesus god? Is he the god of the old testament– the god of Genesis? If so, why do you think so? Is that god supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent as well as being the immaterial universe creator and uncaused first cause who made the universe so he could enact this little passion play on this little planet at this point in time? Do you think life is a pass/fail test where you will live happily ever after if you BELIEVE the right thing in this life and suffer forever if you don’t? Is that moral to you? If you didn’t believe in this god would you be raping and pillaging and doing any vile thing you could get away with?
If souls weren’t real, would you want to know? Or would you want to keep on continue believing they are? Would that affect your faith in god? If they are real, don’t you think science should be able to test them, distinguish them from an illusion (like we have with x-rays, for example) and refine knowledge on them like we have with everything else known to exist as more than an abstraction(like “disappointment”)? Or do you think god and souls are akin to an abstraction?– That you can only “understand” them through “feelings” “faith” and “revelation”? Until or unless there is evidence for some afterlife, why should any person interested in the truth care about what anyone else believes happens after death or how they reconcile these magical stories with the facts? Why should the people here care how you reconcile your theology than you care how a Muslim or Scientologist or Mormon reconciles theirs? Shouldn’t the only people trying to reconcile the bible with the facts are the people who believe that their eternity depends upon them doing so?
You read Shermer… do you know he says “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.” The hijackers were smart enough to learn to drive airplanes– and yet vulnerable enough to believe that they were on their way to paradise on 9-11. Why shouldn’t an outsider conclude that your afterlife beliefs are as likely to be as wrong as theirs are? Couldn’t they be as potentially dangerous? Couldn’t they make you similarly closed off to actual facts?
And I don’t believe in the myth that Christianity is responsible for science any more than I believe in your invisible savior http://nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm So while that might make you feel “holier than thou” (as I’m sure your appeals to Fodor do as well) –to me it’s like a Scientologists who really thinks that Scientology has the secrets for a better world. You’re doing what Shermer would predict believers in “woo” like you would do. You are doing your damnedest to make the facts fit in with the story you feel “saved” and “special” for believing in.
To reiterate, I don’t believe in any invisible beings or divine truths. When you say things like “it’s too late for that” you are cluing me in to how your indoctrinators brainwashed you– to me it’s like any other myth, superstition, or delusion. You speak of things that are factual that are not.
And information doesn’t mean teleology– that is, the information copiers and processors do not need to have any awareness of what they are doing or how nor the goal. I dog doesn’t need to know why it feels the urge to hump. Bacteria don’t need to know anything to divide… Water doesn’t need to know anything to crystallize when the temperature gets low enough. Flowers don’t need to know how to trick insects into pollinating them. All sorts of things become internet memes without the meme makers having a clue that they are making and spreading memes… and “evolving” the language and the internet and technology as they do so.
You just have a need to see teleology… it’s a natural thing in children and religion ennobles such childish thinking in adulthood– it tells you your salvation depends upon it. I would recommend a great book if I thought you actually were interested in understanding this… but I think you need to hang on to your faith for now. So I shall let you.
But I want to recommend the Dawkins link for anybody actually interested in evolution and human origins. Such people are likely to feel more awe than they ever did with religious tales.
I found the Fodor quip about polar bears… I suggest you get your science information from scientists in the future and not philosophers, though Fodor’s colleague and fellow philosopher, Simon Blackburn, answered him quite well and succinctly. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings :
“Similarly Fodor triumphantly asks whether it is being white or being the same colour as the environment that is good for polar bears. A brief look at the life of polar bears, and other bears, and animals such as ptarmigan or mountain hares that change colour with the seasons, forces just one answer. Camouflage helps across the board; being white only helps when it coincides with it.”
Is this beyond your understanding?! (Is this “teleological” to you?)
Jerry Coyne (a real scientist) also gave a great response, but I’m guessing you only read far enough to support your hope that natural selection is in question or too keep yourself from understanding natural selection because it puts your faith in question. You also seem to be trying to convince yourself that belief in your myth is essential for morality which, I’m guessing, shores up your faith when evolution feels threatening…(otherwise it’s hard to figure why you went on that tangent.)
I address people like you in the hope that I may inoculate others from becoming like you. I think your religious beliefs have done you a disservice and ennobled your ignorance. Your need to see the bible as the work of a divine being has kept you from understanding some profound information about our origins unearthed and amassed over time by real people –without heavenly guidance and hampered at every step by those (like you) who claim to “know” things they can not know. To me, keeping people ignorant is immoral.
For those who want to understand evolution, I suggest sticking with the scientists– the people who teach it to many like Jerry or Dawkins or Myers or even theist, Ken Miller (I wonder how he addresses the Adam and Eve conundrum?)
articulett, you’ve been doing yeoman’s work and one helluva job here. Bravo!
If you want to imagine that “original sin” is genetic, you are better off thinking of it passing through Eve in the mitochondria DNA because the entire genome of mitochondria is passed on while only half the of the nuclear DNA is passed on in gamete formation (the making of sperm and eggs). I know it doesn’t fit your bible story as well– but your version is really really stretching it too. If “Adam” had his “original sin” mutation in his Y chromosome, then only his male descendents would carry it. If it was in his X chromosome it could only be passed on to his daughters (did he have any?) and it would likely disappear through the generations as they mated with non carriers. And this would be true of all the autosomes. No single gene of Adam is likely to be passed on to all his descendents as they mated with outsiders. If the tainted allele was on the first chromosome for example, and all of Adams kid’s had the mutation on both chromosomes (from mom and dad), his grandchildren would only have the “original sin” gene on one chromosome since Adam’s kids’ mates would not have the allele. And so Adam’s grandkids would only have a single copy of the allele and their offspring would have only a 50% chance of inheriting it and given normal genetics, the gene would likely die out in his descendents or remain in just a few lines of descent– not in everyone! –Unless god is sticking around making sure all of Adam’s descendents get the booby prize… but if you’re going to invoke magic, why not go all out– maybe the “orginal sin” allele is a magic, immaterial, invisible gene… kind of like god himself and the souls he plans to torture forever if the owner doesn’t believe the right unbelievable tale. Of course developing such a trait seems like a crazy thing to do with omnipotence– it’s not fitting of a benevolent deity and rather lame for an omnipotent one, don’t you think? I mean, the dude is supposed to have superpowers beyond belief– and that’s what he does with them?!
Naturally (pun intended), there is no need to try to make the bible story fit the facts unless you have a vested interesting in making yourself believe the bible is true– or that it really was inspired by a divine being… in which case any story that sort of works for you is as good as any other, I suppose. I don’t think these tortured explanations work except for those who gain something from promoting belief or those who are afraid they’ll be punished in hell for not buying it. And maybe they work for those who are afraid of admitting that they don’t know or understand how humans got here too. Some people would rather believe a lie than admit to not knowing.
Myself, I think it’s much healthier to accept that the bible is not the work of an invisible omnipotent magical universe creator who holds your “eternity” in his hands. I don’t think the 3-in-1 Jesus-god story makes any real sense at all, and I don’t think anyone would believe it without the promise of salvation and the threat of hell. I think it’s time for humanity to grow up and leave this primitive myth behind along with all the others we’ve outgrown.
But if you wish to discuss the issue further, let me suggest the newer thread on the topic: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/adam-and-eve-theologians-squirm-and-sputter/ or you can argue for your version of events on Jason Rosenhouse’s blog: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/09/what_does_original_sin_mean_in.php This thread is old and the contest is over and I’m unsubscribing because I don’t much care what the various believers in the supernatural believe.
Remember though, just because you can twist the facts and your story to kind of get it to make sense to you… doesn’t mean it has a chance in hell of being true. I can’t prove that aliens haven’t abducted missing children, for example, but all the differing alien scenarios about what COULD have happened don’t make alien abduction a likely explanation for any missing children– nor should anyone interested in finding a missing child actually take such scenarios seriously. The same goes for bible stories. They aren’t really for those who want to know what is true– they are for those who imagine they’ve accessed “higher truths” and will be rewarded for believing certain things and/or those who are afraid that they’ll suffer unless they keep the faith. As a theist, you may feel compelled to rationalize your magical beliefs, but I don’t feel compelled to be an audience to your rationalizations.
there is no need to try to make the bible story fit the facts unless you have a vested interesting in making yourself believe the bible is true
Nah. There’s a second reason. Someone makes a blanket statement that it cannot be reconciled.
Oh, I think so long as you invoke magic, anything can be reconciled.
We could be in a Matrix imagining this whole thing. A literal genesis could be real and god could have planted dinosaur bones and made the earth look old and made evolution look real right now to the DNA.
Or the Scientologists could be right and religion could bee part of an evil brainwashing plot by Thetans.
With magic, all things are possible.
“right down to the DNA”
And “be” not “bee”
It’s time for me to unsubscribe from this thread.
Oops…
More facts to work into your magic story: http://www.livescience.com/15911-humans-interbred-extinct-relatives.html
And it involves concupiscence!
It seems to me you are bending over backwards to imagine that a selfish gene means selfish creature… but selfish genes are in plants too… and bacteria– they are just genes that build organisms that are good at passing those genes on. Trees have evolved ways to get the most sun in the environments they find themselves in, for example. Bacteria who are just a wee bit more resistant to antibiotics can flourish where their lesser endowed kin cannot. The genes involved in coding for this tendency are preferentially passed on; they’re “selfish”; they code for traits that give them a greater likelihood of being passed into the next generation allowing for the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. I’ve explained this concept to high schoolers and they can understand it without making your mistake. A creature dies the same species it is born as. But some genes get copied into the future, and so long as these genes are involved in building organisms that preferentially survive and reproduce, they will be part of what evolves. Each new life is set in an environment to see if it will survive to pass on it’s genes or not. Most don’t– those that do are part of the life we see today. In this way creatures evolve to fit their environment– and humans who are good at finding meaning (even when it is not there) might confuse this fit with seeming design.
I think you are being willfully ignorant when you said “Dawkins deliberately equivocated on the term and very clearly intended human selfishness”– he didn’t intend that at all; it’s just that your faith addled brain caused you to believe such a thing so you wouldn’t compute the actual message. Religionists hear what they need to hear to keep the faith. Dawkins didn’t equivocate; you are just can’t let yourself understand. Muslims make the same error.
And Neanderthals cooked their food: http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/whats-hot/neanderthals-ate-plants-too So did the “hobbits” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis. I suspect the Denisovans did too. I think this would put them in the same category as us– intelligent animals. But we are all animals– even those who really, really want to believe that the universe was created so they could exist. (Even those who imagine they have objective morality that they imagine comes from on high.) Any life form that thinks could assume that the purpose of life was for them to exist because they are born into a world that looks like it was made for them– it takes additional intelligence to understand that life evolved to fit the environment and not the other way around. It would do so on any planet that evolved life.
I’m sure Shermer would agree, but I think it’s interesting how you interpreted him so as to make your faith story fit more easily in your mind. You did the same with Dawkins. And I have no doubt you’ll continue doing the same no matter how often you are corrected.
you are bending over backwards to imagine that a selfish gene means selfish creature
Dawkins’ plea that we should strive real hard to overcome our selfishness indicated that he was playing both sides of the street. Dawkins has never been too keen on logical consistency or philosophical coherence.
Perhaps you are correct, and selfishness is not a genetic trait.
+ + +
If you read Shermer’s article, he was deliberately puncturing the balloon of philo-Neanderthalitis. You don’t have to believe him. Another article in the same volume had historians howling in laughter.
+ + +
Trees have evolved ways to get the most sun in the environments they find themselves in
Damn, there’s that telos thingie again.
http://thomism.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/notes-on-evolution-and-teleology/
+ + +
Each new life is set in an environment to see if it will survive to pass on it’s genes or not. Most don’t
“Set”? By whom? Who will “see”?
“Most don’t?” That got to David Stove, an atheist philosopher from Australia. He noted that it has never been true of human beings that “most don’t” survive, for any reasonable value of “most.”
The paper appeared in an Australian philosophy journal now hidden behind a paywall, but a copy was posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/838691/posts?page=51
+ + +
humans who are good at finding meaning (even when it is not there) might confuse this fit with seeming design.
Oh dear. We have discovered the chisel and no longer need the sculptor. If the meaning is not necessarily there, but humans “see” it only because they are hard-wired to see it, you have undermined the basis for natural science.
+ + +
Neanderthals cooked their food… I think this would put them in the same category as us– intelligent animals.
Ah, the culinary theory of intelligence. First of all, what are the empirical facts versus the ladder of inferences that led to “Neanderthals cooked”? Not too long ago, DNA “proved” that humans and Neanderthals never mated. Now the DNA “proves” that they did. Perhaps these are examples of the “meaning” that humans are so good at finding.
we are all animals
Duh? The definition of man as “a rational animal” has been standard since before the Scholastics.
It would do so on any planet that evolved life.
Which planet would that be?
+ + +
The confusion stems from using the term “intelligence,” which is equivocal and could cover a wide range of behaviors entirely explicable through sensation, perception, memory and imagination. However, this was not the Aristotelian or Thomistic usage, which held that human uniqueness lay in the ability to abstract universal concepts from concrete particulars. A brief summary can be found here:
http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/what-really-are-uniquely-human-traits/
Hope it helps.
Actually it would be to reconcile it with an original couple… there is not a first couple of humans we can all trace our lineage back to… that is, there were many other humans that existed during the time of our last common ancestor which produced descendents that our ancestors would have mated with.
To go back to the most recent couple from whom all humans alive today descended you’d have to go back before the common ancestor we shared with Neanderthals and Denisovans (which are different species) since humans alive today carry some of their genes even though their species no longer exists. We’d have to trace back to the last primate couple from whom all of the current genes in the population descended.
The bible doesn’t mention non-human bipeds… the writers seemed unaware that such beings once existed and were our ancestors.
So who were the “original sinners” from whom all humans today would have “inherited original sin” from? Or do you think jesus-god just picked a couple from the many thousands of humans that were around at a certain time to ensoul… –allowing the others to enter oblivion when they died just like all other animals? That’s kind of weird, because then that means an omniscient god knowingly and purposefully made beings that could suffer forever. That doesn’t seem very fitting of an omnibenevolent being. What could possibly be the reason for such a thing? Was he eager to play out his little crucifixion passion play to save those who believed in the story or what?
No matter how you spin it, it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all in light of the evidence, you know? I don’t know how you get from the jesus-god of the bible to an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, invisible universe creator without some major contortions in logic.
I think it makes much more sense to see these stories as myths and to conclude that there are no invisible/divine beings and that humans cease existing when they die just like all the other animals they descended from.
God damn but you’re an obnoxious overeducated moron.
Ben, mi amigo, it’s nice to see some things are invariant in the world of general relativity! Let the reasoned debate begin!
Look, it’s trivial. If you’re a threat to others, those others will work to counter the threat you pose to them
So, if the Germans believe that Jews are a threat,… what? They are right, considering there’s the whole rest of the population of them and only a relatively few Jews? I’m curious whether you apply this methodology uniformly, or whether it is simply an argument-of-convenience.
idiots… zombies… intestine-fondling fetishes… angry giants… magic gardens… talking snakes… Grow up… despotic overlord…
I stand in awe of the powers of reason and science.
What is it with Christians being so desperate to be sheep?
Actually, Rorty, Rosenberg, Fish, Sartre, Nietzsche, and others are/were atheists. It was they who claimed that an objective morality was simply theology sneaking in through the back door. OTOH Paul of Tarsus, and the church doctrine that built on him, contended that morality is not only objective but is accessible to human reason. Your reasoning as regards a majority “protecting” themselves against Jews or Robin Hood or Jean Valjean is not well-grounded, but are at least indicative of the traditional Christian position.
In any case, this wanders a bit from the topic, which is whether original sin is inherited genetically as Thomas Aquinas mentioned, and whether 10,000 ancestors precludes the possibility that there were two among them.
In this respect it is useful to note that traditional theology holds only that all men are descended from one ancestor, not that there is [only] one ancestor from which all men are descended. That is what is called a quantifier shift. IOW, the existence of an Adam does not preclude the existences of Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice. After all, even the mythic story mentions Adam’s children as finding wives (perhaps among the others of the 10,000).
Okay, Okay . . . let me see here:
If the genetic information in the article above is to be trusted, tracing back everyone’s mother’s mother’s mother’s . . . etc. leads to one woman 140,000 years ago.
On the other hand, following every father’s father’s father’s . . . leads to one man 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.
So if I am to believe those two pieces of data, I have to believe that 50,000 to 80,000 years after the great-grandmother of all women showed up, some man appeared in the gene pool, who somehow managed to displace the male lines of every single other man from the previous 50,000 to 80,000 years.
That’s bizarre. What kind of mechanism led to this guy being able to erase tens of thousands of years’ of the genes left by all the other men?
Anybody wanna give that one a try?
No, neither one “displaced” anyone. Having one ancestor does not preclude having many others. For example, you and all your cousins and second-cousins are descended from a single great-grandfather. But you still have three other great-grandfathers – and so do all your cousins, and they might not all be the same great-grandfathers. The religious doctrine of common descent taught that “all men are brothers” well before science discovered how that might be so. We are indeed all of one species.
This has nothing to do with Mito-Eve or Chromo-Adam, who are singular in being strictly matrilineal or patrilineal. The religious doctrine states only that all men are descended from Adam, not that they are descended by strict patrilinearity or matrilinearity.
This is easy enough for even for many Christians to understand– you just have to actually be interested in the subject instead of assuming there isn’t an answer; it also helps if you don’t imagine yourself “saved” for believing in a particular magical version of events.
http://tinyurl.com/3tsoszh
http://biologos.org/questions/the-mitochondrial-eve (Christian website mentioned in OP that tries to reconcile scientific facts with religious teachings.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam
http://www.chartsgraphsdiagrams.com/evolution/mitochondrial-eve.html
You’re welcome.
@Ben
Such cruelly incompetent gods it is whose altars you bow down before!
I’m sure you could have done a much better job.
under the jurisdiction of any Western government
IOW, those governments derived from Old Christendom.
You dare preach your “morality” towards us
I have not preached any morality at all. Although you have been doing quite a bit of it. It is irrelevant to the actual point: whether the genetics that postulates a breeding population of 10,000 dudes and dudettes is incompatible with a myth about the first couple with a rational soul; IOW, between the “origin of species” and the “origin of sin.”
If I were truly omnipotent? Absolutely. Or are you saying that your god couldn’t do any better, was constrained in some fashion? Because that doesn’t sound much like omnipotence to me.
Apologies. I accidentally posted earlier under a name I usually reserve for other topics. Dagnabbit.
@articulett
I don’t think you can have free will with an omniscient deity either…
That my wife knows what I will order has nothing to do with my freedom of will when I order breakfast. A free judgment is not necessarily an unpredictable one.
Since it relates to the Adam and Eve business: Freedom of will follows logically from incompleteness of knowledge. The will is the appetite for products of the intellect; i.e., for concepts. But you cannot desire what you do not know. When we know something with absolute certainty, such as “2+2=4”, our will cannot withhold consent, but is determined toward it. When we know something incompletely, like “world peace” (what exactly does it look like? how will it be achieved? etc.), the will is free to choose different means of achieving it. Think of “free” in the sense of “play” in mechanics. Don’t try to make it more complicated.
Do you think the priestly pedophiles CHOOSE to be attracted to kids?
That didn’t take long.
Ans. No more so than teacher pedophiles or uncle pedophiles (saving only that the priests involved were oriented toward teenaged males). They can only choose whether to ACT on those impulses. The difference is between cannot and can not. Please don’t suppose that the Scholastics never considered the effect of habit (which term for them included inborn and cultural, as well as personal predispositions). That a faculty may be impaired does not mean the faculty is not present.
+ + +
Can your brain make anything “moral”
No more than my hand can make me steal.
You understand the Inquisitors and the Nazis.
Probably better than you, for you likely only use them as myths with which to support your world-view. History is always local and particular and does not behave well for those with Grand Theories.
Of course I’m not the one trying to make myths make sense.
Well, except for the myth of the Inquisition or the myth of Nazism.
+ + +
The bible passage above shows that…
You fundamentalist types are always going on about proof-texts. Remember, the Orthodox Church grounds itself in the Holy Traditions, not in the Bible per se. (The Roman Catholic Church uses the phrase “The Bible and the Traditions.”) Both differ drastically from the atheists and Protestants, who go for the Sola Scriptura thingie.
there is no teleology in things like camouflage… there’s just death to those who haven’t got the genome needed to survive and pass on the genes
I agree that natural selection has a basically negative role: an interesting side effect of death. But how can this be unless there is something in the [trait] that “points to” survival? A lack of telos would mean a lack of “towardness” and this in turn would mean that no thing would lead to anything else in particular. It’s one thing to explain the → in A→B, but one must explain why the → points to B and not to C or D or nothing at all.
Polar bears hunt seals by lurking near seal holes, waiting for the seal to stick its head out, then whacking it. Since the seal cannot see the polar bear at all beforehand, of what use then is the “camouflage”? Summer hunting is different, but in the summer, white fur is precisely less useful.
spread this meme
I thought you didn’t believe in invisible beings that controlled our lives. Heck, even Dawkins has backed off from this notion.
Humans didn’t get a genome from “Adam”– we’d have gotten half of a genome
Cf. http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm
If souls weren’t real
Then nothing would be alive, since the word used by those who wrote of such things was anima, which means “life.” To ask ‘habet res animam’ (has this thing a soul) thus means ‘is this thing alive?’ The remaining question has to do with the powers and operations of the soul.
do you think god and souls are akin to an abstraction?
To ‘abstract’ is to ‘pull out.’ Thus, by observing empirical facts like adaptations, mutations, and death one may abstract the concept of ‘natural selection.’ Anima can be observed empirically: for the most part, one may verify that a thing is alive (animate) and not dead or inanimate. God, however, like gravity and natural selection, must be abstracted from empirical experience. Or perhaps grasped intuitively, the way Maxwell grasped electromagnetism.
Why should the people here care how you reconcile your theology
Because the blog-owner posed it as the question for this thread. Unless there was never an intention actually to explore the question and it was always meant as a kerygma of faith on your part.
I don’t believe in the myth that Christianity is responsible for science
So all those historians of science were wrong? See Huff, Grant, Lindberg, and others for the preconditions laid down in the Middle Ages. See here for an example where a religion really did stifle science: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science and Huff for an explanation why science never even got started in China.
I would no more rely on a site calling itself “nobeliefs” than I would rely on one calling itself “answersingenesis.” Peas in a pod.
And information doesn’t mean teleology… information copiers and processors do not need to have any awareness of what they are doing or how nor the goal.
Of course not. Why should they need to be aware? The telos of a stone in free fall is to achieve a location of minimum gravitational potential, but a stone does not know that it does so. (See: potential functions, equilibrium manifold, attractor basins, etc.)
I said at the beginning you probably did not understand telos, and my intuition seems born out by the empirical facts. Ink marks on paper or bits in a pile of plastic and silicon or sound waves in the air are just that: meaningless energy particles. Searle pointed out that nothing is a computer in itself, but only if people regard or use it as a computer. My tea mug here on my left is a computer executing the instruction “sit there and do nothing.”
Without telos, efficient causation makes no sense, and there would be no natural laws.
I want to recommend the Dawkins link for anybody actually interested in evolution and human origins.
Dawkins is an excellent source for evolution. He may not be an Eisley or a Gould, but his skills as a science popularizer are considerable. That, however, does not qualify him in physics, or theology, or philosophy, or even barbecue sauce.
+ + +
OTOH, I note that you (and more so, Ben) seem to believe all sorts of unobservable things about me, dedicating whole essays to the subject, but with no empirical evidence whatsoever. Ben, e.g., seems to believe that I am preaching morality. This and the need for tendentious and at times invective language dampens my own belief in your dedication to rationality and empiricism.
What amuses me is the persistence of those aggressive atheists, who keep emotionally referring to “our ancestors” with the same kind of kumbaya singing, torso swaying transport and fervor which their kind usually reserve for progressivist camp meetings; wherein their more practical aim is preserving the conditions that make it possible for them to fill their government issue rice bowls from the public tap.
I guess it is then, after all, understandable why it’s so important to them that there somewhere be found, even if it’s only in their own mythology, a “we” to definitively reference.
Yet, “we” obviously don’t on the most recent genetics findings, all share the same ancestors. Archaic ancestors are not equally shared by all of what we call modern populations. Are you by any chance, six percent “Denisovan”?
That goes pretty far back.
Maybe what we need to do is go yet further back in order to find that critical social solidarity fulcrum point; and that’s “the why” behind the Great Apes currently being the beneficiaries of attempts by some to get them recognized as “persons”?
Or maybe certain differences don’t morally matter, not being critical to liver function or something. And why divide humanity – or the “ins and outs” up on the basis of a lactase persistence gene, or an opposable thumb?
Just because Bobo can’t digest cow’s milk or run a lathe, doesn’t mean he ain’t your brother no matter how heavy.
Still, in accepting the notion of random evolutionary development, is it clear on logical grounds why some humans, if we still may use the word, might not have something akin to a “Ghost in the machine” (apologies to Ryle) within them, which others do not?
And even if it is not actually possible, should anyone find the concept of their so having such, “morally” objectionable?
With magic, all things are possible.
How fortunate then that no magic is invoked.
Well, except for supposing that some mutation conferring ‘sapience’ occurred all at once in 10,000 separate hominids. That seems a bit magical.
Far more likely, it seems, that in a population of 10,000 hominids, one individual was born with the mutation (assuming it was such) and like a dominant gene, it spread through the population in subsequent generations.
People who have hammers tend to see only nails; so the distinction between biologically human and metaphysically human is easy to overlook.
That’s naked question-begging, as what is at issue is precisely whether there is a difference between biologically human and “metaphysically” human (whatever that last phrase is supposed to mean).
Metaphysically, man is a rational animal. Biologically, he is only an animal. This makes it difficult to explain systems of physics, speculative mathematics, some conversations on this thread, and the cave art of Lascaux.
Reason is the capacity to abstract immaterial universals from concrete particulars. That is, from Fido, Rover, Lassie, and Rin Tin Tin, to abstract “dog.” As Aristotle put it, it is to known not only flesh, but what flesh is. Alas, there are no fossils of reason, and so it is invisible to that method of knowing.
Hope this clears it up for you.
What do you mean by “metaphysically”? It is true that humans (including women) are animals, and that some of us demonstrate rationality, but I’m not sure why that counts as a “metaphysical” claim — does any concatenation of two qualities make it “metaphysical”? “Man is an animal who chews gum” — is that a metaphysical claim as well?
That’s one definition. And there is evidence that some non-human animals have at least a rudimentary capacity to do this (e.g., African Grey Parrots).
Metaphysically, man is a rational animal.
What do you mean by “metaphysically”?
That which “stands behind physics.” The state of being rational is not a physical thing like, say, chewing gum.
“Man is an animal who chews gum” — is that a metaphysical claim as well?
No. It is a physical act.
Reason is the capacity to abstract immaterial universals from concrete particulars.
That’s one definition. And there is evidence that some non-human animals have at least a rudimentary capacity to do this
It’s the definition, and not to be confused with things like “intelligence,” or “knowing lots of stuff,” or “uses tools,” or “solves problems,” and so on. Any behavior that involves dealing with a concrete particular on a concrete basis, like bending a wire to hook something, can be accounted for by sensation and memory/imagination.
Because rational thinkers, when they form concepts, will almost always also form accompanying images, and because concepts are always abstracted from particulars received through the senses, it is easy to confuse imagination with the intellect, perception with conception. It’s the difference between the concept of triangularity and any particular triangle you may imagine when you conceive it.
There is a short explanation here why your parrot dethrones Descartes, not Aristotle:
http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/what-really-are-uniquely-human-traits/
That is why when Augustine speaks of the “extraterrestrials” of his day – the blemyae, sciopods, centaurs, pygmies, etc. which travelers claimed lived “somewhere far away” – he said that no matter what their shape, color, size, etc., if they had the gift of reason, they were [metaphysically] human. So circling back to your first question, H. sap. is biologically human, but both he and ET would be metaphysically human. If there are any ETs. But then, there really were pygmies; so who knows?
But also we are wandering far afield from the topic, which is whether genetics has dethroned the idea of common decent and origin-al sin. Quite clearly it dethrones a naive literalist, fundamentalist view of the myth, but it does not address the actual teachings of the Orthodox or Catholic churches, and perhaps not of the Oriental or Coptic churches, either.
Chewing gum is a physical act. “Being a gum chewer”, or “having a propensity for chewing gum” is not — it is property.
How about “can count”, or “can identify the quality that differs among several similar objects”? Alex the Parrot could do those things.
This cognitive psychologist is really unimpressed with medieval scholasticism about the mental.
Again, that is question-begging. There is no reason to call rationality “human”, and to do so is to assume the issue at hand. Why don’t we just call it “rationality”, and admit that it is possessed to greater or lesser degree by various organisms on this planet.
‘Tisn’t question-begging, ’tis definitional. You [or someone] asked the difference between biologically human and metaphysically human. The answer is that the latter would consider ET to be human. Or even Alex the Parrot, should his handler’s projections be factual. The former could regard different races as “not real humans” at least until the science of genetics rode to the rescue and proved the doctrine of common descent had been right all along. Consequently, the existence of 10,000 biological hominids does not preclude the presence among them of two metaphysical humans.
For that matter, neither does it preclude a biological determination that a “sapience mutation” more likely arose first in one individual rather than simultaneously in 10,000.
How about “can count”, or “can identify the quality that differs among several similar objects”?
Or his handler could, and read those meanings into the empirical behavior. Could Clever Hans the Horse also count? There was no attempt to deceive on the part of his handler. Of course, “can count” involves only perception of physical objects and memory, and “identify the quality that differs among several similar objects” is also a feat involving only sensation and perception of concrete particulars, plus a bit of imagination.
There is a different between “a behavior that seems to involve counting” and “grasping the concept of quantity.” Let me know when Alex can count without having concrete particular objects. Or can “identify the quality that differs among” single, married, divorced, and widowed women.
This cognitive psychologist is really unimpressed with medieval scholasticism about the mental.
Too bad, because A-T forms a more coherent grounding for science. Perhaps when psychology becomes a science, matters may appear differently. The meaning of facts depends on the theory through which they are viewed as well as the other facts available. Until then, can you cite an example of grasping a concept without forming a mental image (visual, aural, etc.)? That is, a counterexample to the contention you objected to. Or could it be you imagine that only imagining takes place and no grasping of concepts at all? Yet, how can one explain higher math in that case?
Chewing gum is a physical act. “Being a gum chewer”… is not — it is property.
“Intending to chew gum” is certainly a mental act. “Having a craving for gum” is a mental potency. “Being a gum-chewer” is impossible without in fact having chewed gum. The A-T model certainly accounts for them: a sensory appetite does not involve the rational faculties.
It might also be useful to understand what the medieval scholastics actually wrote – they were not all of one mind on such things – than to rely on a vague notion of “medieval=double-plus ungood.”
Right, but your “definition” is question-begging. I can say that cats and washing machines and the Treaty of Westphalia are “metaphysical humans” by my definition, and you presumably would say that’s absurd. You have not defended why reason makes one a “human” (even metaphysically), rather that just “a being that reasons”. You are importing meaning in the use of the term “human” that is unjustified, and assumes what is at issue. Thus, question-begging.
Regarding Alex, the research on his capabilities is extremely solid. And being able to count, especially random objects, is not just a matter of “perception of physical objects and memory”, it is also recognizing that an abstract quality (namely, “number” or “quantity”) applies to a set of any objects. That’s reasoning by any reasonable definition.
I can say that cats and washing machines and the Treaty of Westphalia are “metaphysical humans” by my definition, and you presumably would say that’s absurd.
No, I would say that you have no metaphysical grounds for doing so. Aristotle and other ancient pagans had good reason for defining humans first as animals, and secondly as a particular subset of animals, viz., rational animals. It’s also worth pointing out that the A-T view of animals as having imagination would not regard Alex the Parrot as especially surprising. The Scientific Revolutionaries and positivists, like Descartes, Hume, and the rest, would be flabbergasted.
It always astonishes me how quickly people will surrender empiricism.
why reason makes one a “human” (even metaphysically), rather that just “a being that reasons”.
It is not reasoning per se, but the capacity for rationality; that is: the ability to grasp abstract concepts (e.g. the concept “being” or the concept “being rational”), to put them together into complete thoughts (e.g., “all men are rational beings”), and to reason from one thought to another in accordance with the laws of logic (e.g., “All men are rational” + “Socrates is a man” = “Socrates is rational”). This differs in kind, from sensation + imagination, which we share with non-human animals. Concepts have a universality and determinateness that no sensation or mental image can have even in principle.
being able to count, especially random objects, is not just a matter of “perception of physical objects and memory”, it is also recognizing that an abstract quality (namely, “number” or “quantity”) applies to a set of any objects. That’s reasoning by any reasonable definition.
See above. It probably means that the parrot’s handlers are pulling abstractions from the pure empirical facts of the parrot’s behavior, i.e., applying meaning to them. Let Alex count when there are no physical objects before him.
Materialists are often insufficiently materialistic. Recognizing that this, that, and the other will get you a reward does not mean that you grasp the concept of “three.” We must learn better to distinguish the pure material facts from the abstractions we automatically apply to what we perceive. This is not easy.
Sure, but we’re also bipeds, and a particular subset of them, featherless. So?
And Darwin would have expected it and be delighted, since he presumed humans had developed from other creatures. I know you describe yourself as “Olde”, but you might try reading some science (and philosophy) after the 1700s.
Tulse & Ichthyic: expressing my appreciation to you both for continuing to support the side in face of the stupefying tenacity of this benighted theist.
Good job… but it’s probably best to let the theists battle it out.
Mike Brenner believes that the first humans were poofed from dust that god poofed out when he was in the process of universe creation (and I guessed he poofed ERVs and the mutated Vitamin C gene and the Chromosome 2 fusion thing during his poofing so that smart people could be tricked into believing evolution– which makes him an evil “trickster god”… –which is fitting with the god of Genesis.)
And “olde” think god evolved humans on this planet just so they’d get rational enough to sin and damn all their descendents to hell… except for future generations who applauded god for the little passion play he was going to enact whereby he impregnates a virgin with a carnal version of himself so that she can give birth to her rapist’s son… who is also the rapist himself who was born to be a sacrifice to the god that created him (and the god that he is)so that future sinners don’t have to go to the hell god knowingly created for the sins he knew his imperfect creations would make. He could have made all perfect people like Jesus or had the universe be all heaven all the time for all sentient beings… but he’s a wacky sadistic god– or maybe just in incompetent not, so benevolent, not so omniscient one– an advanced alien type god– or maybe just the deists laid back god that sets the universe in motion and walks away… but sets the timer on 14.5 billion years so that “orginal sinners” eventually evolve on one little planet around one little which god thinks will make a great stage for the crucifixion-atonement play he has planned.
I’d like to see this conversation. This is what goes on at Biologos. I think this sort of “discussion” is what will make Christianity implode from the inside. Mike won’t swallow any facts that threaten his faith… “olde” will accept the facts, obfuscate when needed and insert his magic fairy into the equation amidst gaps.
But now they’ve been forced to think about the story… and the Christian story doesn’t make any sense– with or without a literal Adam and Eve.
On Dembski’s side representing the fundies, we have Mike Brenner– on Collins side representing the accomodationists is “olde”. Can accommodation give a clue to the clueless? Do people who feel saved for their faith purposefully keep themselves from really understanding evolution in order to keep the faith? Can the obfuscate enough to get a fundie to maybe consider that evolution might be a fact (and the earth might be as old as scientists say.) How will future Christians reconcile their faith with the ever amassing facts? How much more will Christianity splinter before being relegated to the pile of myths past?
Sure, but we’re also bipeds, and a particular subset of them, featherless.
But clearly something essential distinguishes humans from a plucked chicken.
(Cf. “essential” vs. “accidental”)
+ + +
…”the A-T view of animals as having imagination would not regard Alex the Parrot as especially surprising. The Scientific Revolutionaries and positivists, like Descartes, Hume, and the rest, would be flabbergasted…”
And Darwin would have expected it and be delighted, since he presumed humans had developed from other creatures.
Why would Darwin have “expected” that a predecessor species would possess the same powers as the successor species? That B evolved from A does not mean that A has the attributes of B. Heck, Darwin distinguished white men from those he regarded as “lesser” races, so it is not entirely clear that he would have blurred the line between humans and Alex the Parrot.
Of course, if you have empirical evidence of what Darwin “would have” believed about Alex, be sure to present it.
I do not understand why the zeal of your beliefs drives you to deny obvious empirical facts. Is it for fear that they would lead to the horrid G-word? Rest assured: you can believe all the facts without taking them any further than that.
+ + +
you might try reading some science (and philosophy) after the 1700s.
What empirical evidence do you have that I have not? Or does empiricism not matter? A few weeks ago, I was reading Whitehead’s Principle of Relativity and its applications to physical science. Does that count?
We have come through 400 years of philosophical squid ink, only to begin quietly resurrecting Aristotelian principles under other names. Darwinism, with its essential teleological nature, was a primary driver in this re-examination; but the physicists with their potential functions and attractor basins, not to mention dark matter, have contributed, too.
Truly, a philosophy that rejects causation in favor of correlation, as Hume did, is not friendly to natural science, which seeks the causes of natural phenomena. A philosophy like Kant’s that replaces knowledge of an actual empirical world with knowledge only of one’s own interior thoughts cannot be good news for those seeking to know the empirical world. The disappearance of “universe” from Hegel, Sartre, and others should worry those who want to learn about the universe. Fortunately, most scientists until recently were pragmatic. They gave lip service to the rejection of form and finality even while they quietly assumed “an irreducible hierarchy and patterned structure actualizing natural things” and “the regularities and lawlike tendencies of natural beings.”
Lots of things distinguish a human from a plucked chicken, but what counts as “essential” is “relative” to one’s concerns.
Again, you might read some philosophy after Aristotle. And for someone who touts “empiricism”, you sure seem to retreat back to Scholasticism in a heartbeat.
How about:
“the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.” – Descent of Man
Seriously, his second-most-famous book is all about how human faculties and capabilities are generally continuous with those of other species. Again, you should read something after 1700.
Of course, I should also note that ultimately it doesn’t matter what Darwin would have personally thought (except perhaps as a note of biographical interest). What matters is how his theoretical work applies. Unlike your apparent veneration of “Ille Philosophus”, what matters is not the man, but the ideas, and how right or wrong they are.
Excellent — that gets you up to 1922.
It’s official — you really don’t understand evolution.
for someone who touts “empiricism”, you sure seem to retreat back to Scholasticism
But Scholasticism was empirical. It is Kantianism and its successors that have retreated into idealism. Face it, if you really believe that your only real experience is with the thoughts inside your own head, what hope do you have of knowing anything about the empirical world.
+ + +
“…Darwinism, with its essential teleological nature…”
It’s official — you really don’t understand evolution.
More likely, it’s official that you don’t understand telos.
The Darwinian engine has two strokes:
1) Species “strive to the utmost” to reproduce. “In a world already possessed,” this results in far more offspring than can possibly survive.
2) In the “struggle for existence” those better fit for their jobs will survive proportionately more often than those less fit. As a result, successive generations tend to become better fit to their environment.
Both the “striving” and the “struggle” imply an ends-directed process; viz., “to reproduce offspring” and “to continue living.” That is, there is a “towardness” in the process. If not, natural selection would not lead to evolution or the origin of species, but to white noise.
(On a more general level, natural selection tends “toward” greater fitness for its niche; and on the broadest level, evolution per se tends “toward” the origin of species.)
If only evolutionary theory were mathematized like the hard sciences. But it’s not clear if it is even possible to do so.
What?! That is completely absurd. Scholasticism (as traditionally defined) was all about doing “critical” analysis of the works of other authors (often the Bible). There was no empiricism as we usually define it in Scholasticism. To the extent that Scholasticism had any sort of coherent actual philosophy (as opposed to tradition), it was Rationalism, which is hardly empirical.
Again, you seem to misunderstand the area you’re discussing — Kantianism is not “idealism”, at least not as traditionally defined. Kant does lay out what he argued are the necessary non-empirical qualities necessary for understanding the world, but he did that precisely to provide a foundation for understanding the world.
(And I find it not a little hilarious that someone touting “essential” features is arguing against idealism.)
You are once again engaging in presupposing your argument. Species don’t “strive” to reproduce — it is simply that those species that do reproduce go on to make more of their species. You might as well say that crystals “strive” to grow bigger, or that water “strives” to flow downhill. Do you think there is purpose in an avalanche?
“Struggle” is again importing a term that is primarily metaphorical (and yes, it has been used by evolutionary biologists in the past, but in this metaphorical sense). Organisms with mental states presumably do “struggle” to survive in a literal sense, but it is absurd to say the same about the majority of organisms on the planet. Again, those organisms that happened to act in certain ways, or have certain qualities, ended up producing more organisms with those behaviours and qualities. There is nothing any more teleological here than when a river carves a path through the lowest contiguous sections of land. “It’s amazing! Look at that river strive to flow downhill! How did the river know those bits led to the sea? It must be struggling to reach the ocean!”
A rock “strives” and “struggles” to get to a lower potential energy state. A crystal “strives” and “struggles” to grow bigger in a solution. I am “striving” and “struggling” to make sense of your muddled understanding of philosophy and absurd characterization of science. Only in the last instance is there any teleology happening, and even in the last case I’m not sure there is a clear end.
Tulse
Scholasticism (as traditionally defined) was all about doing “critical” analysis of the works of other authors (often the Bible). There was no empiricism as we usually define it in Scholasticism. To the extent that Scholasticism had any sort of coherent actual philosophy (as opposed to tradition), it was Rationalism, which is hardly empirical.
TOS
The Aristotelian maxim was “nothing is in the mind unless it is first in the senses.” Read for example Oresme’s discussion of the possible motion of the earth, which repeatedly cites empirical experience: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/HIS-SCI-STUDY-GUIDE/0040_nicoleOresme.html Or consider Theodoric of Fribourg, who correctly determined the cause of the rainbow as refraction through raindrops by filling glass balls with water and conducting experiements. Roger Bacon determined that the speed of light was faster than the speed of sound by observation of a distant blacksmith, noting that the hammer strike could be seen before it was heard.
What they did lack were two things: a) instruments to make measurements of qualities other than weights and extensions (and only very crudely, of time); and b) mathematical notation (since the privileging of mathematics in the discourse of science was a key element of the Scientific Revolution). It was Oresme who invented the + sign.
Perhaps you are using a different definition of empiricism?
Tulse
Species don’t “strive” to reproduce
Darwin
“Every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers.” and “Each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio.”
— The Origin of Species (1st ed., 1859), p. 66, 78-9. Both passagesare repeated in all later editions published in Darwin’s lifetime. He also says the same thing in other places.
However, “species strive” was a synechdoche for “the individuals of a species strive”
You seem to be confusing this with “conscious intent.” That would be true only of the animals, in particular the higher animals.
Tulse
You might as well say that crystals “strive” to grow bigger, or that water “strives” to flow downhill. Do you think there is purpose in an avalanche?
YOS
I said there is telos in nature. Everything works toward an end, “always or for the most part.” Otherwise there would be no regularities in nature, no natural laws. Natural selection would lead to random results, not to species better adapted to their niche, and there would be no evolution of the results. However, one does not normally say “strive” of crystals, since they are animated from the outside, not from an internal principle. Living things have intention of a sort; inanimate things are moved from the outside. The telos of an avalance is to minimize its gravitational potential. Being inanimate, it does not know it does this; but it does it every time. It is so dependable, we can express it in mathematical laws from the hard sciences.
But I have cautioned you against this error – confusing telos with conscious intention – before. Perhaps you did not read the previous comments.
Tulse
Organisms with mental states presumably do “struggle” to survive in a literal sense, but it is absurd to say the same about the majority of organisms on the planet.
YOS
“Struggle” need not be conscious. Plants struggle to survive, sending out roots or branches and so forth, protists likewise; but no one says they have “mental states.”
Tulse
those organisms that … act in certain ways, or have certain qualities, ended up producing more organisms with those behaviours and qualities.
YOS
Of course. For the organism, the telos is reproduction. Otherwise natural selection would produce random results rather than evolution and origin of species.
Tulse
There is nothing any more teleological here than when a river carves a path through the lowest contiguous sections of land. “It’s amazing! Look at that river strive to flow downhill! How did the river know those bits led to the sea? It must be struggling to reach the ocean!”
YOS
A river is inanimate. It does not “know” anything. Nevertheless, it does seek out the path of minimal gravitational potential. A river never flows uphill. (Not all rivers reach the ocean, btw.)
Tulse
A rock “strives” and “struggles” to get to a lower potential energy state. A crystal “strives” and “struggles” to grow bigger in a solution. I am “striving” and “struggling” to make sense of your muddled understanding of philosophy and absurd characterization of science. Only in the last instance is there any teleology happening, and even in the last case I’m not sure there is a clear end.
YOS
I cautioned at the beginning that you likely did not know what telos is. A long time ago, Descartes discarded telos because his program (and that of his contemporaries) was to seize power over nature for the manufacture of useful (and profitable) products. To do this, one need know only the efficient (agent) causes and (to a lesser extent) the material causes. Those will tell you what buttons to press to bend nature to your will. (Boyle’s list of the most pressing problems of science in his day is instructive: Only a couple of them are scientific problems. The remainder are technological problems — “a ship that can sail under water and a ship that can never be sunk” — or male fantasies — “the recovery of youth, or at least its appearance.” Science is all about Hair Club for Men??? Archimedes would have laughed himself sick.)
But one consequence of the success of this program is that the exclusive focus on efficient causes for near 400 years of philosophical squid ink has conditioned us to think of causes solely in terms of efficient causes. Hence, the others have become invisible. It’s like restricting ourselves to telescopes alone, and then declaring that microbes do not exist.
Telos is called “the cause of causes” because is there were nothing in A that “pointed toward” B, there would be no efficient cause by which A→B “always or for the most part.” Hence, when a scientist investigates nature with the confidence that there is a natural law to be discovered, and not chaos, he is showing reliance on final causality. They just won’t say so. They’ll use terms like “information” or “encoding” or (in physics) “attractor basins.”
Evolution makes far more sense when the teleological behavior of living things is taken into account.
And if you insist on that, I believe we have come to the end of productive discussion.
Luke 28:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Both Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus agree with Ye Olde Statistician.
They didn’t consider creation struggling so absurd.
mb
Well there you go then. Jesus said it, you believe it, that settles it.
Remind me again what their experience in biology is?
And, for that matter, remind me again what stones “crying out” has to do with organismic evolution?
Jesus of Nazareth? You mean the Zombie of Zion, who lead the great assault of the undead on Jerusalem in ’33? The one that didn’t make it into the “historical” records until the second century?
Fictional characters in a children’s faery tale book that opens with a story about an enchanted garden with talking animals and an angry giant failing to find the absurdity in bawling boulders should come as a surprise to nobody. What continues to astonish me, personally, is how anybody who needs to take off his shoes to count his age can take seriously even a single word in that bad joke.
Cheers,
b&
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
As for this Jesus person, the scriptures say that He was creator of all things. If true, this would make his knowledge of biology remarkably comprehensive, half as much as yours perhaps.
If the biblical account is true, this Paul guy, being from Tarsus, was no philosophical dummy, and was quite determined for a long while to destroy whatever movement this Jesus guy had begun. One day the lights went out and he found himself talking to the supposedly dead Jesus guy, and had a major attitude adjustment. He even went so far as to state that some 500 persons had seen the dead guy alive again as well.
Admittedly, Paul was neither creator, nor a biologist, though I suspect that Darwinian concepts were not on the syllabus at Tarsus U.
Oh, yessireebob, the Biblical account is 100% absolutely completely true.
Say…I’ve got some prime Arizona beachfront property for sale — real cheap, what with the real estate crash and all. You want in on the deal? It’s your chance of a lifetime to become filthy, stinkin’ rich. What’ve you got to lose?
Cheers,
b&
Which scriptures? The Bhagavad Gita? The Qur’an? The Avesta? The Torah? The Edda? The Kitáb-i-Aqdas? The Evangelion? Dianetics? The Pearl of Great Price? The Kojiki? The Ginza Rba? The Necronomicon?
Why should we believe what your scripture says? After all, the one I follow states very clearly: “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’ lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn”. Surely you agree that’s true, right?
Oh, there’s plenty of ways to dance with the devil.
But you didn’t really address the issue. How do you know your scripture is right when there are so many others, some of which explicitly say that yours is wrong?
Mike:
“If the biblical account is true…”
That’s the crux of the issue. By all independent examination it simply ain’t true. The Colossions passage you quote was written by a forger & the gospel passages you quote are also written by undated, anonymous writers- long after the supposed events they are documenting. It is wishful thinking at best & more likely pure fiction of the bullshit variety.
If the Biblical god exists, he is a truly pathetic communicator & given to misrepresenting the facts.
-evan
Mike:
“If the biblical account is true…”
That’s the crux of the issue. By all independent examination it simply ain’t true. The Colossions passage you quote was written by a forger & the gospel passages you quote are also written by undated, anonymous writers- long after the supposed events they are documenting. The Bible is not a reliable source of factual information: it is wishful thinking at best & more likely pure fiction of the bullshit variety.
If the Biblical god exists, he is a truly pathetic communicator & given to misrepresenting the facts.
-evan
Josephus, no fan of Jesus, wrote of him not later than 66AD.
Ha! What a joke.
Seriously, dude. You have got to be one of the must gullible marks on teh innertubes.
I mean, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits it’s a forgery — never mind Origin who bitched about Josephus’s ignorance of Jesus.
You sure you don’t want to take me up on that offer of Arizona beachfront property? I assure you, it’s far more legitimate than your silly zombie death cult playdate club. And when did they ever give you a chance to make loads of money?
Cheers,
b&
[If we had a preview, that would read, “Origen.” Sorry.]
b&
I’m not a young earth creationist and do not read their materials. I don’t know how old the earth is, and neither do you.
Universe could be old, could be young. If it took God a billion years to make the stars as we measure time, and for their lights to be visible to earth, and he called that billion years a day, it doesn’t bother me in the least. In fact, it exemplifies his eternal nature to my way of thinking. If God made it all happen in two hours so that LIGHT initially traveled at exponentially fast rates when it ORIGINATED, and subsequently decayed into stable wavelengths and travel rates in a vacuum at c speed that we see today when the creation power source ceased after the initial firing, it is fine with me as well. Or, that light was superantigravitated away from the power source in the very beginning, that’s fine too. Light has been filtered down to around 44 mph, so it is possible to slow it down, and its speed is a function of the medium it passes through. If there was God the creator in the beginning, who says there couldn’t have been a dark ether void through which light’s speed was c to the Cth to the Cth power so that light was exported throughout the creation really, really fast? Once light was originally released through it, the dark ether void collaped inescapably into black holes, leaving vaccum appearance of outer space. Once released, light speed drops down dramatically to where it is stable and travels at the rapid, but more measurable speeds we have today. I can think of numerous reasons the universe and the earth must be very old, but can also see possibilities of a much younger universe and a younger earth as well.
If I’m gullible (and the evidence is overwhelming, right?), so be it. Already own Arizona beachfront property I bought real cheap near Scottsdale. All property was beachfront property at one time anyway, since it was all under water in the great flood. There have been offers to double and even to nearly triple my money after seven years, despite a bad real estate market in Az., but I’m holding out for the seventy fold increase, and maybe even one hundred fold since I’m blessed by God, and he works in mysterious ways. Not looking for any more real estate on earth, but thank you for thinking of me.
We actually do know the age of the earth… just like we know that Venus exists and that the carbon in our bodies comes from stars. There’s this thing called science, and it’s responsible for wonders like the computer you are typing on, modern medicine, air travel, the Hubble telescope, dentistry, indoor plumbing, electricity, etc. It allows us to know things that the writers of your magic book did not know and could not know.
What we don’t know (even those who imagine they do know) is whether any invisible/divine beings exist. As far as the evidence is concerned, the invisible divine beings you imagine yourself saved for believing in are no more likely to exist than the invisible/divine beings you readily dismiss as imaginary or mythological. Really. You have no more claims to divine knowledge than the Mormon Prophet or Reverend Moon or a Muslim extremist.
I do feel for you– you “need” to make yourself believe, because you imagine you will suffer forever if you don’t, right? But I don’t think you’ll have any success at convincing those who are actually interested in what is true.
For the record, earth is 4.55 billion years old. The universe is 13.73 billion years old. This is a fact whether you comprehend it or not. We DO know this. Even if your indoctrinators would like you to believe otherwise.
And there was no “great flood”… even if you really, really believe there was. There is no one that is going to “save” you so you can live happily ever after for believing the right unbelievable story. (This is also true for the Muslims who believe they are going to paradise while those who blaspheme Allah by worshiping Jesus as a god are going to hell.) The earth is not the center of the universe even if you believe with all your might that it is– and the universe was not created so you could exist even if it “feels like” it was. There are no gods nor demons nor angels nor gremlins nor eternal invisible realms nor ghosts nor fairies nor magical beings of any sort. Wanting things to be true and believing them to be true doesn’t make them true.
I sincerely hope you grow beyond your magical thinking one day, as there are fabulous things you can discover that ARE true… and WERE true even when you didn’t believe them– and they will be true, even when you no longer exist. The evidence for the things that are objectively true keeps amassing and getting refined and honed, so faith is not necessary. The only punishment for not believing it is ignorance like yours –and like other superstitious people have. But right now, you are too afraid that your loving god will punish you forever unless you believe the right magic story with the right fervency –and you’ve left yourself no way to move beyond your brain washing.
There’s this thing called science, and it’s responsible for wonders like the computer you are typing on, modern medicine, air travel, the Hubble telescope, dentistry, indoor plumbing, electricity, etc.
The Wright Brothers were not actually scientists. There is a tendency on some parts to credit Science! with the triumphs of engineering and tinkering. It’s a mixed bag. We get airplanes to deliver atomic bombs; we get wonder drugs and nerve gas; profitable products and pollution. This is because of the Baconian/Cartesian revolution in which science was subordinated to industry and engineering, and its object was reimagined as “mastery and control of the universe” rather than “knowledge for its own sake.”
*looks to see where the Wright Bros were mentioned*
hmm.
methinks you have just created yet another strawman argument.
There is a tendency on some parts to credit Science! with the triumphs of engineering and tinkering.
one, most engineering IS based on the findings of science, otherwise, building things would engender much more randomness than it actually does.
two, you are employing a strawman argument, in that noboody ever said that all things are the products of science.
for example, the requirement of humans to drink water is hardly the result of a scientific observation.
now if you want to argue that science does NOT play a significant role in modern engineering, then go ahead and try.
that would be a gas.
I’ll enjoy repeatedly torching your inevitable false equivalencies.
or, I could just head you off at the pass and ask you what courses are required for a degree in engineering these days (hint: there is a lot of math and physics involved for good reason).
There is a tendency on some parts to credit
ScienceEngineering! with the triumphs of {simple reinforced observation]engineering and tinkering.And you believe the papist claptrap that comes out of the wicked mouth of the Whore of Babylon? Geez, Ben, no wonder you’re going to hell.
What you mean, “going”? I’ve been living here for ages!
Drop by and visit sometime. Just grab the next handbasket on Good Intentions Road. Fare is steep — thirteen pieces of silver for cattle class, two gold coins for the chauffeured ride — but the trip is quite scenic either way.
Cheers,
b&
What you mean, “going”? I’ve been living here for ages!
do make sure you catch the never-ending campy sci-fi film festival while you’re there.
I hired Joel Hodgson to host it.
If you can’t find a guide, just go back to the main entrance, turn around, go right past the shark tanks, and you can’t miss it.
*looks to see where the Wright Bros were mentioned* hmm.
Try looking here:
There is a tendency to confuse Science! with Engineering and even with Mathematics. Occasionally, one sees Science! even confused with simple reinforced observation. But a man who observes that two kinds of rocks when struck together will produce a spark is not doing Science. Science means finding out why those two rocks make a spark.
Most engineering has not been based on Science until very recently in history. (It was only in 1834 that Rev. Wm. Whewell coined the term “scientist,” because it was only then that it was becoming a profession, rather than a hobby of the well-to-do.) What scientific degree did Edison have, for example? Of course, engineers have always used mathematics, but Mathematics is not Science, either. In some of the items called out, Engineering made something work and Science followed after, explaining it. In other cases, Science unfolded a principle and Engineering followed, making it work.
Engineers today must study physics as well as math; but it is ahistorical to project this situation into the past and claim indoor plumbing or air travel as the fruits of science.
But all of this is a vast digression, and we ought to wind it up or return to the topic.
“Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum.”
— M. Tullius Cicero, De Oratore, sec. 120
(“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child.”)
Ichthyic was referring to air travel. The Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk barely made it as far as the wingspan of a 747. Besides, I’m pretty sure they had at least a bit of knowledge gained from the works of Carnot, Watt, and many others.
“To be ignorant of what has been discovered since the dawn of the Enlightenment is to remain always an idiot.”
— Ben Goren
But never mind. You suggest we should cut to the chase. I agree.
Kindly present for us, right here, right now, one single piece of positive evidence supporting that laughable piece of childish fantasy about Adam and Eve. Not one piece of evidence that’s not inconsistent with it, but one piece of evidence that actually raises the chances that it’s not pure bullshit.
Cheers,
b&
There is a tendency to confuse Science! with Engineering and even with Mathematics
repeating yourself doesn’t make you any more accurate.
repeating yourself doesn’t make you any more accurate.
But all of this is a vast digression
uh huh.
in fact ALL of your posts consist of little else.
I carefully note that you did not address the consequent of your claim that I posted, involving the fact that learning to drink water for sustenance doesn’t count as engineering.
in short, if you want to ascribe the Wright bros model to random chance, and call that engineering, you’re simply wrong.
by the way, to help you on your way to seeing that you example of the Wright bros is actually a terrible one to “prove your point”…
I would ask you if you really know who inspired them to start looking into flight to begin with?
and who inspired that person?
and who inspired that person?
and once you get there…
what do you find?
yup.
SCIENCE, BITCH.
A bald assertion is not an historical demonstration; and “inspiration” is not science.
Now, if you’re willing to equate science with simple knowledge (scientia) so as to include military science, political science, and all the rest, fine. But Poincare (a real scientist, btw) pointed out that a pile of facts was not a science any more than a pile of bricks was a house.
see:
Orville and Wilbur
^
Otto Lilienthal
^
George Cayley
look ’em up.
What did George Cayley do?
here’s a clue:
science.
why do I mention this?
two reasons.
one, like I said, the OP NEVER MENTIONED THE WRIGHT BROS. No, they mentioned air travel.
YOU mentioned the Wright bros.
but, like many engineers I have met (whether you are one or not), you seem to want us to think that engineers come up with their ideas, or implement them, with no scientific background needed.
this is a MUCH more common fallacy than the reverse case you proclaim.
In fact, I’ve met engineers who work for oil companies that haven’t a clue about the geological and paleontological science underlying the methods they utilize, and so conclude that science had little to do with the methods they employ.
ignorance is no excuse, not in their case, and not in yours.
Who ascribed the engineering and test piloting by the Wright Brothers to random chance?
I have no idea why you think learning to drink water for sustenance would count as engineering. Seems more a natural instinct to me. (And teleological, at that: “for” sustenance.) Now, building an aqueduct to bring that water into Rome, that’s engineering. (And especially good examples, too. The drop is precisely calculated, even though they did not have a theory of gravity or hydraulics. They did not know about water head, so the standard calix was wrong, but all-in-all, the Romans were excellent engineers.
Not much in the sciences, which they regarded as impractical. (Nor did they do much in the way of new mathematics.) There were no notable additions to Greek natural philosophy until the Middle Ages. Pliny and Macrobius were encyclopediasts, collecting facts and lore willy-nilly; but they were not themselves natural philosophers.
I’m willing to consider all systems of knowledge about objective reality that demonstrably work to be science. If we can understand, refine, and hone our information on a subject– be it air travel, space, DNA, magnetism, x-rays, technology, etc. I consider it science. Science is about the stuff that is true for everybody no matter what they believe. Air planes fly whether you believe they will or not. One doesn’t need to understand X-rays for them to work. Venus existed long before humans did; science is our method for understanding more about this planet as well as our own. Science is the best tool we have for understanding objective reality (the natural world). I don’t really consider political science to be science unless you are measuring objective information (what percentage of self described atheists are opposed to the death penalty compared to self described theists, for example.) But I can see why many religionists like to obfuscate understanding on the subject. Science works; religion does not. Religionists have been indoctrinated to believe that their religion is “another way of knowing”– the facts don’t support such a claim, but with enough obfuscation, many can be lead to believe otherwise. (You, for example.) This appears to be especially true if you can get people to think they will live happily ever after for believing the right unbelievable story– and that they will suffer eternal torment if they doubt. See the Muslims if you have any doubts.
I consider religions on par with myths, stories, fables, opinions, ideals, legal institutions, governments, economic models, superstitions, etc.– things that are not science… These things may incorporate science or have measurable aspects about them, but they are not paths to understanding objective reality in themselves though people may BELIEVE otherwise. In my opinion, religion steals credit for what science does… religionists utilize science for their own benefit … obfuscate it when it makes their “prophets” seem wrong… and denigrate it when it threatens “the faith” they want others to “believe in”. Religions, like all of the above, are human constructs; they require the material brains of humans to exist (though there is evidence that other animals develop rudimentary superstitions if they are able to associate cause and effect… pigeons will try to recreate movements that they think might have caused food pellets to drop from the sky, for example.)
I think it’s more than obvious that your indoctrination is compelling you to denigrate and obfuscate the understanding of science so that your religious beliefs seem like a good or true or a method of finding out something objectively factual –when it’s more than obvious to most of us that your religious beliefs are no more good or true or useful than the religious beliefs you reject (such as those of Scientologists… who like to imagine that their religion is scientific.) In your mind, if you can find fault with science, your religious beliefs “win”. I’m sure the same is true with the Muslims and Scientologists and the Greek Myth believers of yore. Anyone outside the superstitions can see that these are clearly not methods for finding out about reality –though humans are vulnerable to confusion on the topic and will adhere to stories that “seem” like explanation and then confirm these biases (as you’ve demonstrated.) I thank you for illustrating this tendency to those who may stumble across this webpage in the future.
I think a lot of us were probably like you back when we believed in the supernatural. So, rest, assured, we understand why you are trying to shift the conversation to “problems with science” rather than the likelihood of your particular magical beliefs being true. You illustrate why faith and fact are not as compatible as the Biologos folk would like to believe. Each believer has to come up with their own ad-hoc explanation as to why the facts don’t really sit well with the stories they imagine themselves saved for “believing in”… and when that doesn’t work so well they are stuck trying to convince themselves that science without the input of their magical beliefs is “evil”.
Your digressions, however, are getting increasingly bizarre. If you weren’t so desperate to shore up our faith, you might be able to engage in an honest conversation and actually learn something instead of playing this weird semantic game you feel compelled to play.
Obfuscating understanding of science does not and can not make your Jesus-god real nor can it save the Adam and Eve story from becoming yet another myth humans once mistook for historical fact.
Do you claim that the objects and methods of mathematics are the same as for natural science? Forsooth! Eight years in math, wasted.
Your age estimates as to the age of the Universe involve much guesswork, though mathematically intricate guesswork, based on empirical measurement and assumptions presumed to be constant throughout time. You can infer astronomical ages in the billions of years as to the age of the universe, but you ASSUME things to do so with your measuring sticks, that may not be actually FACTS, as in immovably and unchangeably TRUE.
The Big Bang Theory is one method of explaining the universe. Let’s see how the theory goes… In the beginning, just before the beginning second, there was NOTHING. In the tiniest fraction of a second later 10**-46 seconds (or thereabouts), infinitely compressed matter in an infinitely small place at astronomically high temperatures (from theoretical calculations, not empirical) began expanding suddenly out of the nothing point of singularity some 13.73 billion years ago to produce what we can observe today. And it is an indisputable fact!
These ages are inferred from some empirical measurements and other theories about how matter behaves, and with much retrospective four dimensional, theoretical calculating. One of Einstein’s cornerstones was that the speed of light cannot be exceeded – it is nature’s maximum. The big bang theory goes so far as to state that the powerful expansion of supremely hot and compressed matter emerged out of the point of singularity (infinitely small). Then, prolonged cooling ensued, because the theoretically calculation model ran into stability problems due to the unverifiable but predicted high temperatures, at just 10**-17 seconds (or very close), so that matter, whatever it was then, became more stable (and went through a several thousand year cooling state), and the big expansion was on!
So, 13,729,996,999 years plus a fraction of a second later, here we are. And so, based on the Hubble constant, and other chosen cosmological parameters assumed by the theorizers, such as homogeneous and isomorphic expansion, the great expansion was on. And it was not a hostile “big bang” explosion, but a controlled inflationary (but just briefly) explosion (because it has to be because the model falls apart otherwise). So, the point of singularity emerging out of the nothing gave birth eventually to matter everywhere it exists, and here we are, and this THEORY is a FACT, way too complicated for an indoctrinated physics major of old to even contemplate, no matter what. Stellar formation, heavy elements as things cool off, etc. Later accidental life, eventually man (Oops, there’s another theory, I mean fact!) And you say my faith is founded on shaky ground, nothing more than myth.
Steven Hawkins and other scientific minds say there is continuity in the theory, you believe it, and that settles it! Talk about faith!
They theory predicting a supposed 13.73 billion is a fact, though you have not personally verified every piece of data by fellow adherents, ignored the limitations of assumptions made (assumed to be true), and the theory is a scientific FACT, and anyone who questions the validity of any data or assumptions?) is just a lost sheep to religion.
I have one itty bitty question. Why can’t the folks who did all this calculating, observing, time-space bending calculating indisputably accurate down to .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of one second, pinpoint the exact location where this godless Genesis took place (since it is isomorphic and homogeneous), and come up with an exact start date as we measure time today (say in elapsed seconds from complete universal nothingness to September 23, 2011 GMT at 12:01AM) and location of the origin of the Universe? We can watch the national debt clock move, and the genesis clock would be a whole lot more scientifically important as the universal time clock of everything! When and where EXACTLY did the BIG BOOM start booming? Since it is a fact that the expansion has occurred homogeneously since 10x-17 of second one, we can perform Redshift analysis on numerous stars much closer to earth, and find the point of origin of everything, since rates of galactic recession are known and perfectly predictable, Hubble is always constant and can be applied everywhere, to determine the universal point of original FACTually?
We know for a FACT that the universe is exactly 13,730,000,000 years old, because you say so. Have you noticed that the universe is getting much older in just the last 50 years, based on the supposedly best scientific minds as time goes on? You actually can graph the “scientifically factual” age of the earth versus when they said so, and develop a mathematical model for that data, because we know what the scientific folk said about the age of the universe, and when they said it. Heck, I might even have been one of them saying it. The age of the universe is getting older at an ever increasing rate, with no “flattening” trends graphically over just the last fifty years, and the slope of the curve upward is very steep indeed of late.
The plain truth is the supposed facts of the age change regularly in the science realm, are changing all the time as reported, though in truth, nothing has really changed, only scientific interpretations, and understanding, and lack thereof. Your FACTs might even be off a jot or atomic tittle, and maybe even considerably off, whether you believe it or not, no matter how sincerely you believe your figures are correct.
Just yesterday, there was a new report from Switzerland about neutrinos being repetitively measured at exceeding the speed of light. The doggone little neutrinos (heck, they didn’t even used to exist!) travelled between Switzerland and Italy, and arrived faster than the speed of light. What? Clearly, this is impossible, because there are scientific theories (FACTS right?) that exclude this possibility, and Einstein’s theories say the speed of light is the maximum! FACTS cannot be wrong! It must be some religious people manipulating the data….(But, they are such morons! How would they even know what to manipulate?)
I see you’ve got a religious “chip on your shoulder.” I can’t fix that for you. As a very young person, I believed that evolution was the way man came about, because that is what the indoctrinators taught me. It made sense, because great minds of the age had figured all this out, and to my own way of thinking there was simply not even the possibility of a young universe, based on the light from distant stars taking so long to get to earth. Been there, done that.
Later, whether you believe I did or not, I met the Master, who pointed out the foolishness of supposedly wise men trying to confine Him to the “God doesn’t exist box.” He does not abide there. When I looked inside that box, He was not in inside! He overcame my objection to how can a pure message come from an impure messenger by revealing that He alone is the Message. Very simply, I know Him. My faith in the Master does not fade because the earth appears to be four billion years old from heavy element radioactive rate of decay predictions, or 10,000 years old as men measure time. Therefore, I am not a young earth creationist and do not fit in that box, but that does not mean I cannot conceive of possibilities where the earth is very much younger, and could be that young. If the speed of light is not the maximum speed permissible in nature (this was an indisputable scientific fact just two days ago, but now there is contrarian empirical evidence — So how could I know about it weeks ago?), the big bang theory and others need some serious tweaking at the least.
The measuring sticks show what they show, and the theoretical models show what they predictably compute, but the models, however elaborately conceived and expressed, are not FACTS. They are very interesting and titillate the human mind, but are much less than facts, even if you believe they are much more. This is true, whether you believe in God, infinitely compacted singlularity, or whether you believe your Mom used to make outstandingly delicious blueberry pancakes.
You say, what I believe does not change the facts, and I could not agree more. What you believe is true or not true does not change the absolute TRUTH.
mb
But your method for finding out the truth is on par with a Scientologist’s method for finding out the age of the earth. Those who are actually interested in the age of the earth use science. Science is the only proven method we have for refining and honing information about such things. We didn’t learn about other planets from scriptures and we sure as hell aren’t likely to figure out the age of our own planet (or the universe) using such.
When science is on the correct path it allows us to predict new evidence and refine our knowledge about objective reality. This is how we’ve been able to hone in on the actual age of the earth. Of course a magical god or demon or interplanetary alien could have made it all look old to fool us– or we could be in a matrix, but those who are actually interested in the truth, dismiss such unfalsifiable claims for obvious reasons. Belief that some fable is a higher truth that must be believed is a very very poor method for finding out about objective reality but a common meme used to get people like you to confirm their biases on the subject so that they can feel like they “know” something without actually having a clue. You feel like you need to believe something to be saved; those who aren’t saddled with such a delusion are much freer to pursue the actual evidence.
This is why people who are interested in the truth get their science from scientists and not theologians. Scientists have a vested interest in the truth; theologians have a vested interest in imagining that they’ve already accessed it and convincing others of the same. Science has built in error correcting mechanisms. When it comes to supernatural beings and claims, there is no method for telling a truth claim from a misperception, delusion, or competing unfalsifiable claim.
When I want to understand something scientific, I go to experts on the subject– not self appointed experts on invisible beings.
Hmmm…he definitely is not asking you to forsake scientific inquiry, just pointing out that it may have as many weaknesses as non-scientific inquiry.
mb,
Your master appears to be somewhat challenged in terms of accurately documenting his activities and interactions with his ultimate creation; man. The Bible can be shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking masquerading as the word of god. Full of contradictions & falsified history, it is a human creation through and through. Unlike Science which is self-correcting, Biblical literalism can only drive its thick head deeper into the sand.
The god of the bible is a human construct. Get over it & move on.
-evan
However amusing the religionists may seem as they wallow through efforts to reconcile their beliefs with ‘reality,’ it is as amusing to me how the arrogance of certain scientists lull them into a suspicious sense of their own self-(or should that be “science-)righteousness. It is as dangerous for science to presume theological ignorance and outright lying about reality automates the efficacy of their views on ‘ultimate reality.’ I do, however, love how the dispassionate scientific method reasonably represents Humanity’s love of enquiry and discovery.. where ever it takes us. It would really be wonderful to know all we can about who, what, where, and why we are.. for better and/or worse.
you do realize that there is a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism, do you not? scientists do not presume that theists and woo people are ignorant and/or liars, they simply acknowledge that these people have yet to meet their burden of proof.
The same could be said about those who believe in witches or demon possession.
is it possible that all rh- blood came from 1 couple?…children of men and children of adam,not the same people as assumed.at the time of adam,many humans already existed for thousands of years,rh+ humans,children of men.rh- blood is not of earthly origin and dates back to about 10,800 years
Ok so I am thinking about removing my site from Tumbler and get it to a WordPress site. I believe this is a wordpress site right? If it is, may I ask where you got the theme? Thanks a bunch!
The Bible and Science do not conflict. Even though genetic markers go back before Adam and Eve, and who’s to say Adam and Eve didn’t live thousands of years, after all they were initially sin free and presumably would have lived for eternity if it wasn’t for their sin. I believe God breathed his spirit into Adam and Eve, thus the creation of humans with God’s Sprit. Looking at Science, Adam and Eve were probably created 50,000 years ago by God. Scientists have no means of detecting God’s sprit within the DNA, so there is no conflict. Christians are fixated on the 24 hour day. Heck, the solar day wasn’t even conceived until between 2,000 and 4,000 years ago by the ancient Egyptians. For all we know one of God’s years could be a billion years. It is clearly the misconception of time that puts the Creationists at odds with the Evolutionists. And who’s to say God didn’t create Adam and Eve through evolution before he breathed his spirit into them? During Noah’s time, what was the population of descendants from Adam and Eve , a few thousand? Obviously a flood could have wiped out all the descendants of Adam and Eve except for Noah and his gang. You can easily prove the current world population starting from approximately 2500 B.C. considering nominal birth rates. Yes, everyone on earth is a descendant from Adam and Eve, the first pair of humans to receive God’s Spirit.
You mean after the unification of the Upper and Lower Egyptian civilizations?
Seriously, have you studied any archeology?
Great comments….I didn’t read all the replies however one must bring into account the silly Noah story……this compounds issue….
I for one am a scientist in love with an evangelical woman. I believe that an omniscient God designed the world to look and operate AS IF it adhered to all the principles demonstrable and deducible according to our experience and reasoning. We cannot “prove” articles of faith, by definition. If they were provable they would not require faith. As far as the choice to believe testimony, in a line back to the events about which testified, it is a decision I make to believe the testimony so transmitted.
All religion is severe Delusional MENTAL ILLNESS! A delusion that there is an imaginary
MALE Deity who judges and punishes and rewards us for proper or improper behavior is insane!
Humans cannot deal with their animal instincts and SEX, so they make up rules to cope with
them and call this Religion. Humans are the only creature that can contemplate their death. They
fear death and cannot cope with the thought of it. Religion is a COPING mechanism that allows
humans to get through the day without the panic that they are just like any other primate on the
Earth, except that they know they will DIE and their powerful sexual and violent behavior has to
be tamed and controlled or they cannot function as a society.
Humans wrote the Torah, Bible, Koran and other holy books.
How can GOD have gender? ..always referred to as a MAN–HE, HIM, HIS, KING etc.? Why
would god who created the sun, the earth, and formed man out of dust –need a human woman
Mary to create a son? Why would god allow the torture of his son to forgive bad actions of
people thousands of years later? Belief in this silly fantasy/fable is a delusion and total insanity!
Some excellent questions mixed in with your doubting comments. There are answers.
“A delusion that there is an imaginary
MALE Deity who judges and punishes and rewards us for proper or improper behavior is insane!”
However it will all be far too real and full of terror for some people when the day of judgement arrives and each person has to account for their deeds done during this lifetime. God is real and no imaginary being, make no mistake about that.
God chose to give mankind free choice as to what he thought, did and believed and knowing that manakind would fall by the wayside due to sin, sent his son to die for any who would believe in him so that they might be able to enter heaven. Millions have believed this and despite allthe rubbishing of the Bible by some, those millions will be in heaven while the scoffers find themselves in hell, a place of eternal punishment. There will be nothinbg imaginary about that when it happens. And when thbe day arrives it is too late to change your mind about who God is, or Jesus Christ his son. Those things are determined ion this lifetime and you either share the “reward” or the punishment as the case may be for all eternity.
Christianity aka Jesus incorporated has really lost any moral high ground that the historical Jesus may have left them. the story of Christianity is full of non-sense only a true believer who was brainwashed could swallow w.o puking. He was God or Son of God..why has tho forsaken me? forgive them for they know not what they do. You would think they love and respect Jesus so much they would even pay heed to what he supposedly said and agreed to have said. If he WAS God or Son of God how could the Jews have killed him? Even if some Jewish priest under the thumb of Rome was involved he states forgive them as of course Jesus would say because that’s what he was about. But no Jesus Incorp. went about exterminating innocent Jews in the world’s greatest case of guilt by association and evil propaganda. They in effect bathed Jesus in his own peoples blood as well as other Christians blood. It was the Christians by these sordid acts that have killed the spirit of Jesus and his good name over and over through history. Jesus is perhaps the most abused figure in the history of mankind. Believe me he never wanted to be a pagan war God bringing his faith to followers by threat of death and burning at the stake.
Sigh.. Most of Western Protestant Christianity sees the account of creation in the Bible book of Genesis as a literal account. This book was written approximately 3500 years ago in a different culture, with a different mindset, and in such a way as to describe things that are difficult at best to fully understand. If one looks to Eastern Orthodox Christianity they may see a different WAY of understanding such writings but I won’t go into detail on that subject now.
The Genesis account of creation is not written to scientifically enlightened people such as we think we are (wait another 500 years and they’ll be laughing at us too 😉 )
If reading the creation account symbolically speaking one can easily reconcile science and religion in this matter. The “7 days of creation” were very likely not 7 literally days but rather 7 eras, or 7 periods of time, or 7 billion years, etc. For instance God says “let there be light” on the 1st day but creates the Sun on the 4th day, therefore it’s not possible that the light spoken of when it says, “in the beginning God said let there be light and there was light” was even light as we know it (especially not sunlight). This speaks of something else. I can go on and on.
In the same way Adam and Eve were very likely not 2 literal people. the word “Adam” in Hebrew means, “Man”. It’s not his name. when it says “God made man out of the dust of the Earth” we may get an image of a God in the sand forming a man like one would at the beach, when this COULD denote some more “evolutionary” means by which God formed man. The creation would be consistent with the way God does things even now… We can say, “God made a tree” so there’s a seed, it has the “blueprint” of the tree and the tree “forms” by the process that God created, as opposed to a tree suddenly appearing out of thin air. Because the tree came from the seed doesn’t mean God didn’t make the tree or because it didn’t just appear it means that God didn’t have His hand in it.. He made a PROCESS by which it occurs. Same with reality itself, same with time and space, which are a created thing. God exists outside of time and space (incomprehensible to out intellect) and created time and space and exists within it as well. We don’t look for Him within time and space using our physical eyes and our intellect to perceive Him, we use our soul, our inner being. We have to understand these things on more than one level. We use out intellect and our “heart/soul” and can then comprehend a little better the creation account… God said, “let us make man in our image and in our likeness” “make and female He created them” In God’s likeness we ourselves also exist in and outside time and space. Our body is clearly physical, and we think with our mind and yet we are also spirit. The entire thing works together as a whole. If we understand these things then “let there be light” can make more sense, and we can grasp God and the creation account of Genesis more clearly and less literally so as not to see it as a scientific recount of “how God made the creation”
Okay, So, if we assume God exists, and does so outside of time and space (unless he chooses to insert himself in time and space – completely his choice),
What stops Him from bouncing around between the days and evenings of creation, disappearing and reappearing whenever and whereever He wishes in the creation grid, doing some work on the sixth day say while in time and space, and then back to the fourth day say in time and space to make the Sun, and then back to the first day in time and space to make stars billions of light years away (and back out of time and space, taking DNA say from 4:00PM on the sixth day and then inserting some of it at 11:00AM on the sixth day when he made Adam using future DNA from one of Adam’s descendents to make it look like Adam and Eve couldn’t have lived at the same time and that Eve was much older than Adam, when in fact Eve was made from Adam) getting everything just right so that it would be very good indeed on the end of the sixth day, and then going back to the first day (re-entering time and space in His infinite wisdom and perfect plan and timing) allowing creation to work perfectly the way He planned the end from the beginning for the next 144 hours as man measure’s time and then took a rest?
Even though it looks to man like it took billions of earth years, it only took God 144 earth hours.
You’ve come so far, why not just a little further and believe the creation story as it is written?
He’s God man. Can’t he do whatever He wants if he exists outside of time and space? He is laughing pretty hard right now, I bet you at all the dummies who are sure the evidence indicates he doesn’t even exist!
Benner
‘He’s God man. Can’t he do whatever He wants if he exists outside of time and space?’
For such Super-Being / Can do Anything type God, he’s a remarkably poor communicator. Imagine him hiding behind this overtly flawed & contradictory ragtag collection of human scribblings we call ‘The Holy Bible’.
No, it doesn’t appear even remotely likely.
– evan
The reason it may seem to some as “contradictory” or “ragtag scriblings” is not because God is a poor communicator but rather because it was written by humans of an entirely different language that scarcely exists anymore , in a style totally other than the way us modern, westerners would write and we read an English translation of this from our own viewpoint.
For example: John 16:13 says, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth”. There’s no plural word for “you” in the English language (except slang, like “y’all” or terms like “you all” or “you guys”). The original word in that verse is plural for “you”. So as a post-modern, Western (independent) thinking, English speaking/reading American we read that as if Jesus is telling us directly that the Spirit will lead us as an individual into all truth apart from the rest of the Church, or independent of anyone else, when really He’s saying the Spirit will lead y’all (or “you guys”) into all truth. We also read it, as we do with much scripture, as if he’s addressing us, the reader, personally even though he was speaking directly to the Apostles and we weren’t standing there with them at the time. These language and cultural (and mindset) barriers contribute to so many splits that have led to the many thousands of denominations and independent Protestant churches.. each reader of scripture believing that they have the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture independent of each other and independent of the Traditional interpretations of the historical Church and the teachings of the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. Along with Sola Scriptura (“scripture only” in Latin, which is an idea that developed in the Protestant movement which is the false notion that only scripture is necessary for fully understanding God and the Church, etc) this creates disconnectedness from the foundational teachings of the predecessors of the Apostles and the wisdom of the Church Councils. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the lives of each individual Christian filled with the Spirit? No.. but not to create Theology and doctrine apart from the others and the historical Church.
So we can see that one word translated into our language and read through the filter/lens of our self-sufficient/independent mindset can cause complete havoc. This is not God miscommunicating, this is a human flaw.
Sorry Mark; but, now you sound like a mother making excuses for why her son got an ‘F’ on his term paper. It’s a poor effort. To suggest that the creator of the genome and quasars couldn’t communicate clearly when it came time to reveal himself to humans is nothing more than post hoc rationalization – trying to make excuses for this incredibly flawed account. Sorry, but that’s not a tenable assertion. (I too BTW, once felt compelled to defend the Biblical account as “God’s Word’ but I’m not drinking the Koolaid anymore…I decided to look at the evidence with an open mind & be honest with the results for the first time in my life. It fails any sort of test of veracity.)
Face it, this man-made work we call the Bible is so poorly written and ambiguous that it has caused immeasurable strife and violence as god’s ‘holy’ people fight each other to the death over what they imagine god must have meant when it says: “__________”.
(‘Jesus wept.’ Why? because he knew that he was incapable of explaining himself in clear enough terms to avoid what we have subsequently seen in Northern Ireland or Bosnia or African villages where they torture their demon possessed children. You name the time and place and I can show you the poisonous legacy of this holy Bullshit.)
It’s BS. It’s OK to come out into the light & call a spade a spade.
-evan
Even, I appreciate your honest approach to attempting to understand reality. I’m actually not “defending” anything but rather stating the facts as I understand them to be. The creation account in Genesis is a simplified way to explain something that would be difficult for humans of it’s time (1500 BC) to comprehend. These people would not have understood evolution, adaptation, genes, microbes, etc.
In fact it was Galileo who was imprisoned under house arrest for 2 years for heresy by the Roman Catholic Church of his day because he said the earth goes around the sun. The Catholics held that the sun went around the earth because A) it appeared that way and B) the bible said in the book of Joshua that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and it did so far a day. To me this doesn’t disprove the fact that an event took place but rather than it was perceived and written down by humans, they had the science wrong, and God didn’t correct them when they wrote it down but rather allowed humanity to understand the science of it later on in history. Galileo was victim to the same religious ideology that exists in modern American Protestantism when it comes to “how” to read the Bible.
Why would this not be the case with the creation account?
It seems you are replying to my posts from a protestant christian (perhaps evangelical) background having been told the bible is written by the hand of God Himself and without being tainted by humanity. please don’t project that on me, I’m not that person. ..and if I came across that way then my communication was flawed (forgive me for that).
God seems to reveal things to humanity as humanity progresses. The things we explain to our 3yr old child are different than how we explain to our 17yr old. The things we understand now will be a laughing stock to some 500 years from now when they look back at our 1 dimensional understanding of science while they are engaged in harnessing quantum physics and understand quantum mechanics and spiritual things make even more sense to them than they do to us.
Humanity is in a progression and God allows us to discover as we grow. It’s people’s trying to conceptualize God and spiritual things using intellect (because that’s how we deal with time and space) that often causes a problem. Example: trying to comprehend God Himself intellectually is not possible because our intellect is finite and God is infinite. Furthermore using intellect to KNOW God is not possible because the intellect is not for that purpose.. That is like trying to teach a computer to love. Any concept of God is a mere idol because it’s less than what He is because He is infinite and the mind is finite. So.. people conceptualize Him and create an idea of Him and then fight other groups who have created a different idea of Him and so we can religious wars, divisions, etc.
God is perceived through the soul/heart (nous in greek) but we are so used to functioning solely using our intellect that we miss something major. Does this mean we don’t try to comprehend? no.. we’re not mindless BUT the mind has it’s place and that is to function within spacetime and God is known in another realm. So we know about Him but can’t KNOW Him solely using intellect.
The creation account is as symbolic as the revelation at the end of the bible. It’s not a book merely about “end time events” it’s a spiritual book that has information that far surpasses most people’s ability to comprehend. Perhaps it will be crystal clear to a 25th century human or perhaps not but nonetheless it’s people, who in their arrogance, think they must understand everything about those writings, but really don’t, who create madness by misinterpreting and misrepresenting it. This kind of thing creates atheists and people who shun God.. people aren’t shunning God, they’re shunning who and what they’ve been told by others that He is.. the God of other people’s imagination.
So… did God leave humanity lost? no… after spending 14 years in evangelical Christianity and bucking up against what felt like a ceiling of not being able to go further with God and my spiritual like both theologically or experientially .. I have personally found that Eastern Orthodox Christian Theology makes the most sense of these things. The Orthodox Church is the only Church that can lay claim to not being a product of a split and so there’s a rich theological heritage dating back to the time of Christ, that makes the most sense of God… at least to me (I’ve now been there 7 years)
Anyway, I appreciate your replies to my comments. It’s always a pleasure to talk to thinking people. I’m not one who “blogs” but I came across this site researching a subject of for a friend and threw in my 2 cents.
All the best…
“And lo, in the depths of time, out of the clay and mud and earth did the first creatures appear, smaller than a mustard seed would seem to a man across a large field. These creatures begat others, and of their progeny some were strong and some were week, some were small and some were large, some could eat of what they found and some could not, some could rend their foes and some could not. Those ill-suited perished, winnowed as a shepherd will slaughter those sheep who are weak but allow those who are strong to breed. And those who lived begat others, and so on unto the fullness of time, until their offspring did cover the earth and sea and sky in multitudinous form, all shaped and formed by the eons of their ancestors and the places they inhabited, just as the sheep of the field and the grains of the crops have been shaped by husbandry over many generations.”
okay evan, what is the MOST contradictory item in the ragtag collection of human scribblings in your opinion?
I would like to know the specific science that is able to accurately date genetic information. let me clue you in. it doesn’t exist. is complete supposition no different than religion.
There is no scientific process to accurately tell the age of mitochondrial DNA *period* bottom line at some point in history the genetic information points to a single male and single female that we all come from.
Hi Timothy
I’ve always thought trying to accurately date these types of things simply had to involve guesswork – a guess average longevity, a guess on how often DNA “errors” occur, with major cumulative error potential.
Yet, the supposed geniuses who have determined that the genetic Adam and genetic Eve did not live at the same time and couldn’t possibly have gotten together. Okay, so who was the genetic Eve (who is 25,000 years older supposedly), getting together with to have offspring with no man on the scene? Oh, there was a man, but that man is not the father of anyone alive today, and the genetic Adam came much later. Who was keeping genetic Eve busy (and obviously having children through subsequent generations) for all that time? Eve and her offspring were having children (presumably) for 25,000 years, and then finally the 800th or so generation of Eve, finally came across the genetic Adam, the father of us all. Then, all other lines eliminated, except for genetic Adam line. I see…Seems quite the statistical anomaly to have Eve reproducing for 25,000 years to get to genetic Adam without the whole human race dying off first. Yet, there is a genetic Adam. Or Maybe geentic Eve didn’t die for 25,000 years and she was waiting?
The logic doesn’t add up. Genetic Eve had to have kids who had kids who led to every one of us. One of Eve’s partners (since she is our genetic mother) seemingly has to be our genetic father, no? Okay, Eve was just one of many, some 10,000 or so humans back then who reproduced with Eve and others. for 25,000 years , we had Eve’s offspring surviving and multiplying (independent of the other beings). Then, after about 25,000 years, one of the other beings (A male) came along to become genetic Adam. Eve’s offspring got together with Adam, and became the father of us all. All other lines wiped out. This is what the science shows? Okay fine…..
Seems a lot more sensible to me that the mitochondrial age estimates are off a wee bit……
There’s a GREAT Orthodox Christian book that bridges the gap between the two schools…
“Genesis, Creation and Early Man” (you can get it at Amazon)
Book Description:
Amidst the creation/evolution debate that is now raging, with evidence being offered for both sides, few have made use of what Fr. Seraphim Rose called “the missing evidence”: the teaching of the ancient Orthodox Holy Fathers on the events of creation, the first-created world, the natures of created things, and the original nature of man.
Now for the first time in the English language, this teaching has been gathered together and set forth in a thorough, detailed, and above all honest manner. Perhaps more than anyone else in our times, Fr. Seraphim Rose searched, studied, prayed and suffered to understand how the ancients noetically apprehended the creation in the light of the God-inspired book of Genesis. Having acquired their mind, he has presented to the modern world the harmonious Patristic vision of the cosmos.
A vital answer to the contemporary “crisis of meaning,” this book sheds startling new light on the mysteries of our origin. The Divine vision of the ancient Church Fathers opens up unforeseen dimensions of the creation: deeper levels of reality that cannot be reached through rational or scientific means.
My take,after two ten year marriages,is the moral of the story is,even when a great authority says NO,she does….. .
I’m curious to understand how the modern human being occurred. Is it the same question how any new species occurs? Is the answer in each case ‘as a natural adaptation to circumstantial/environmental influence,’ whereat a mutation (in evolutionary fashion) is provoked, otherwise as an existing (radically occurred) “variant” in an “at-risk” population is selected to proceed? Would not the first male and female pair of viable offspring from this mutant’s seed to produce modern human offspring (characteristic of that successful mutant) be, in effect, Adam and Eve?
Apparently not, if you believe the science. The variants can still descend from common ancestors. These folks are saying genetic Eve was not around for genetic Adam, that there were no surviving paternal decendents of Eve’s mating partners for 20,000 years, and this is a scientific fact. All the other male lines persisted long enough to get to genetic Adam, but were cut off.
Oh. Word of warning. There’s a bit of ‘poof’ talk at the page I linked to. Excuse me for not mentioning this earlier.
For some reason, my earlier post, to which I refer in my previous comment, did not end up posted so I’m trying it again:
I’ve just read all the comments above. Took me ages. I’m a theist due to personal experiences, and a Christian for the reason that though there’s much in the bible I still question and have a great deal of trouble with, it’s also the place I’ve found concepts presented and communicated I’ve found nowhere else in such density in other religions, and teachings that have provided a context for those things I’ve experienced. In the face of the mysteries of our existence (cosmology, biology and consciousness), I intellectually respect agnosticism, and, on the basis of personal choice, I respect atheism. No matter what people believe, we all have the same decisions to make, day to day, regarding how to respond to the situations that confront all of us. I came here because I was hoping to find some information relating to the whole ‘fall of mankind’ thing from the bible. I started this journey asking questions, and I intend to keep doing so. I’ve found answers to seeming paradoxes before (and not through letting my mind turn to a contradiction-embracing mush), and the time this has sometimes taken has taught me to have a large ‘i don’t know’ or ‘hmmm’ file as I gather information and viewpoints on a topic. I got in (just a little) trouble a few years ago at a church i was attending when a CRI (7 literal days of creation) guy came and spoke for handing out fliers refuting what he said on the basis of the bible’s statments regarding God ascribing to the waters and land the power to bring forth life, the seeming natural order of physical death in the creation prior to the fall, the clearly communicated non-literality of the days mentioned, and a couple of other things regarding reasoning and the need not to fall ito false dichotomies. I should probably add that it is my belief that there are other ways of knowing true information than exclusively through the five physical senses. Whatever. Anyway, in my hunting, I found this:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html
It makes a few interesting points relating to the methodology of research concerning the origin of humanity which, if accurate, are worth consideration. Apart from the obvious disagreement most readers of this page are likely to have with the writer’s statements regarding their beliefs, I’d be interested to know what people think about the statements about a very recent and sudden appearance of homo sapiens sapiens. If this should really be on another page, please let me know. Thanks.
Hi Dennis,
I’m not versed enough to respond to all of the points in the article/ link you posted, found some of them interesting, but I honestly cannot tell how biased the author is and what facts he chose to use or ignore. By limiting data, you can strongly imply and even “prove” most anything.
National Geographic has sponsored a genetic search where the public can get involved and look at their own deep genetic ancestry. The test subjects so far are in the hundreds of thousands, no doubt the largest such effort ever. There are some humans who DO share the the Neanderthal heritage at least in some trace amount according to the tests. So, though like you I’ve heard that humans and Neanderthal lines never crossed genetically (perhaps from the article you posted from some years back), this appears not to be scientifically true, as the DNA shows otherwise. It is rare in the population but it has occurred.
I’m not going to try to interpret this at this time.
I’m with you on this one, but I must follow up. At any stage in our evolution (splitting off from the chimps up to splitting off Homo sapiens) doesn’t there have to be a breeding pair close to the beginning? Maybe a mutant female mates with an ancestor, but eventually their children survive and the rest are decendants of those boys and girls. Or does an evolutionary step, such as to Homo saps happen gradually? (What do I know, I’m a chemist.)
Most often speciation happens when populations become isolated from each other for one reason or another. Given enough time enough genetic difference can arise that if they were to come into contact again they would not be able to reproduce successfully. It is not a matter of a “founder couple.” 😉
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Main point of the article is that perhaps humanity’s ancestry is a bit simpler than’s been thought.
Yes, that’s an interesting story. It has nothing to do with a “founder couple,” however. 🙂
Oops. Apologies.
Pressed reply to your comment, but meant it as a general addition to the discussion since it had some bearing on some of the ‘reconciliation’ proposals.
Something relevant to the ‘founder couple’ topic:
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/researchers-shed-new-light-on-genetic-adam-and-eve
Main point: Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosone Adam may have been contemporaries.
Hello,
I love science. I love ancient scriptures and writings of all kinds. AND I even love the Conspiracy Theories. Basically, I love information.
MY thought as I read all these debates is this… Just as Religious Ideas may be immature in understanding, so may be science’s findings. Science may say one day that a black hole is one thing, and the next day Stephen Hawking puts out a paper saying we have to revise what we think and know about them because of some NEW thing he found…
Maybe there is some DNA we have not even found yet. ??? Is that NOT possible?
I think one day we will all find answers that bring us ALL together, both Science and Religion… It may be far off…. but it’s coming.
I CERTAINLY do NOT think it is COWARDICE to refuse to take a stand on something. After-all, why should we? Just so we can say we are WRONG once we find more information (as Hawkings must do now with Black Hole Theory) ? It MAY be safer in light of the fact something may throw a monkey wrench into our shortsighted conclusions. It strikes me as arrogant to do otherwise.
Carry On. Thank You for all your hard work.
Kymberli
Why does it have to be science versus the Bible? There is a lot to learn if we are willing to accept that science and Christianity can embrace one another. There is a new book I recently read called To Adam about Adam by Jim Frederick that makes a great argument as to how science and the Bible can embrace one another as a part of God’s plan. The author works through Genesis step by step to show how science supports creation – both evolution and Adam/Eve occurred. The book builds a good case as to how the basis for sin (being self-centered) originated as a part evolutionary history centered on the fittest will survive. He then discusses in an informal way as how the Old Testament is a series of lessons as to what cannot defeat sin, whereas the New Testament describes the only solution. I believe this book can help those of us who have often wonder whether science and the Bible are opposing forces (or not). For me the debate is over!!