Posted on 11/29/2011 12:32:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
For the last several months there has been a flurry of discussion—mostly online, of course—about the impossibility of a literal Adam & Eve (see, e.g., here and here and here). This ruling-out has been accomplished recently by the Human Genome Project, which indicates that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago, from a population of something like 10,000. In short, science has confirmed what many of us already knew: there was not a literal first couple. So what else can we learn from this story?
Plenty, it turns out. Peter Enns, a biblical scholar who blogs at Patheos, has been following the discussion with some care. Lately he has done us all a great favor: written a series of posts pointing out recurring mistakes made by many of those doing the discussing. Many of these mistakes are rhetorically effective but collapse upon even modest inspection.
But not all of them.
On Friday, he listed one held mostly by the pro-science crowd: “Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone.”
Enns declares that this is not so. “The years of training and experience required of those who work in fields that touch on evolution rules out of bounds the views of those who lack such training,” he writes.
This is true but it misses the point. The open-access-to-science cliché, usually trundled out by those who wish to contrast the transparency of science with the supposed obfuscation of religion, carries some truth.
Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. That’s because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. It’s out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles. Also, what counts as evidence in science is pretty well-defined. And if you do become an evolution expert, you actually will see that 99% of all scientists back evolution for a reason: the evidence demands it.
This is the great generosity of science, and its great strength: It is actually all right there, ready to be seen and understood. It is relievedly explicit. It takes effort, sure, just as Enns suggests; it’s not easy to become a professional research biologist. But the reason biologists agree on evolution is because it’s a relatively simple matter to be objective about fossils and genes. Unlike the objects of religion—the divine and humanity’s relation to it—the objects of science give themselves up for abstraction and analysis without a fight.
Therefore Richard Dawkins (for example) is right when he says, as he has on many occasions, that the evidence for evolution is there to be inspected by anyone. It is sitting out there on the table, waiting patiently for most of humanity to catch up to it, waiting to tell us it’s time to bid the historical Adam & Eve a final, if fond, farewell.
‘We just don’t understand the principles behind it.’ - well,
err...
except for amd. None of us are even worthy to discuss such weighty matters w/ amd. He just deigns to try to teach us all some new learnin from time to time.
And never ask any questions re: beginnings nor all the complexities to support life, the Earth and the Universe.
They just are there - poof - to allow all the other complexities to work themselves out and re-code for every nuance of every kind of living thing.
Through complete and utter mistakes [mutations] every life form just figured out, on its own, completely undirected, going from about 7 million lines in the bacterial DNA upto the 3 billion for human DNA and then surpassing all others with the Paris Japonica planticus thingy at about 50 billions of coded sequences but actually showing [like most plants] less complexity than mankind [often assumed to be the highest most advanced and complex of all the physical lifeforms]. see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007120641.htm for more...
Why you ask? Well just because the newly self-appointed masters of all knowledge and intelligence [mostly in recognized universities with lotsa letters after their names, but also including any who agree with them] say so.
WHY WOULD SHOULD COULD ANYONE EVER DOUBT THIS STUFF -
IT JUST IS -
S#!+ HAPPENS...
Oh and don’t anyone ever dare broach the subject abiogenesis again when discussing evolution or it’s head boppin time!!!
Is the word “literal” in there? Did I miss it?
Incorrect.
A person’s faith can be STRONGER when he sees the profound SYMBOLIC implications of the Adam & Eve story.
Ping
What? Is naming the people not literal enough for you?
What AMD describes is actually Creationism, because he ignores the origins (as you said, “poof, it’s there”), and then describes observable species adaptation as “evolution”.
You know, I tried similar lines on my mom when I was a kid - something about honor the spirit of her rules and not actually doing what she said - and she didn’t buy it.
I can’t speak to the state of your faith. Not my place. But I believe anything that weakens our belief in the Bible as the literal, inerrant Word of God weakens our view of who God is. If that means I’m mocked for believing in a historical Adam, so be it.
However the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is -as you said - based upon facts in evidence and is put to the test.
So what is going to stop this “micro” from accumulating into “macro” when the observed rate of change is both necessary and sufficient to explain the amount of DNA divergence between species?
You have not defined either or explained how either differ in quality quantity or mechanism.
It is as if you claimed that we can only observe “micro” erosion - and that what we observe in “micro” erosion in our living time frame is not sufficient to explain the “macro” erosion of major geological features and cannot explain how “micro” or “macro” erosion differ in quality quantity or mechanism.
Adaptation is Not evolution.
Adaptation gives us all the breeds of dogs, which all come from a dog.
Evolution would have us believe that a dog could come from an animal that is NOT a dog; or a man would come from a non-man.
If it happens through natural selection of that genetic variation - then it was Darwin's theory that explains it.
Why? Do you have your own Humpty Dumpty meaning when you say “evolution”?
Do you mean “common descent of species” when you say evolution?
Do you find it frustrating that after years of discussion on this topic you still don't even understand the terms being used?
A dog came from an animal that is not a dog. It is called a wolf.
The pattern of common ancestry we see in DNA between dogs is the same pattern we see between all dogs and wolves - just more change within it- and the same pattern we see between wolves and coyotes - just more change within it - etc, etc.
Somehow, you don’t see the question begging illogic of your definition and conclusions.
Then please explain to me how the word “evolution” in regards to biology is not what biologists say it is, and what they mean when they say it - but is something else - what you say it is - something different that you apparently are unable to define.
Evolution is change. Biological evolution is change in the DNA of a population.
Natural selection acts on these variations through differential reproductive success, leading most changes that are preserved within a population to be either neutral or adaptive.
But I see how this works! If biologists define something that agrees with reality - well then! Their model is just based upon reality - so who should be surprised when you can use it to explain and predict other facets of reality! For being based upon a supposed logical fallacy - the scientific method sure seems to beat the pants off the superstitious conjecture of creationists.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
That's not logic. That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"Einstein was not a loony Geocentrist. Logical fallacy of appeal to authority anyway. An authority that doesn't even agree with you. Rather sloppy, silly and stupid, wouldn't you say? Using logic?
I didn't say he was. To imply otherwise is simply the use of the straw man fallacy. And of course, it wasn't just Einstein making statements on the equivalence of geocentric and geokinetic models, it was also Hoyle, Born and Ellis making the same point. Ellis in particular underscores the reality that the choice of models is based on personal opinion and certainly isn't any basis for calling someone 'loony'.
But I am glad to know that you will never appeal to any research except that which you have done and published yourself. That's the problem with using 'appeal to authority' as a fallacy. You can't honestly then use any appeal to any authority yourself. To do otherwise would be extremely hypocritical.
And you accuse ME of setting up a strawman by misrepresenting the position of the other side... remarkable.
So the bacteria will “ramp up mutation” as part of its response, because all mutations are going to either be neutral or detrimental?
Does that make sense even to you?
How could a population with such a mechanism survive in competition with populations without this mechanism?
Use logic please to explain to me WHY a bacteria as part of its survival response would want to “ramp up mutation” IF all mutations are going to be detrimental?
Yes, Einstein is not a Geocentrist. Do you therefore think you have a superior understanding of the ramifications of relativity than Einstein?
“coordinate system” is not a verbal talisman that protects you from ever having to explain how gravity can move the Sun while leaving the Earth motionless.
“logical fallacy” is not a verbal talisman that protects you from every having to deal with any scientific fact conforming to a scientific model or theory.
But you will continue holding up your talisman - thinking that it protects you from looking like a Geocentrist loony fool. Good luck with that!
Science has been of enormous use and has beat the pants off creationism in terms of use and application year after year, a pattern that will continue.
But this divergence doesn't get you off the hook for your inability to define “evolution” and what it is you mean by it.
Do you find it frustrating that after years of discussion on this topic you don't even understand the terms being used?
I find it frustrating that you do not.
Frustrating and amusing in equal proportions.
By stating that creationists exclude science, you are misrepresenting their position.
By the way, hows that “poof, there’s life” theory working out for you?
... but it does serve its intended purpose.
Adaptation is not evolution. Sorry. Evolution says that a specific animal arises from an animal that is different.
A wolf IS a dog. Canines are dogs, dogs are canines. All are genus ‘canis’. You can adapt a particular canine into another canine. You cannot evolve a canine into a non-canine.
Man is genus homo, other primates are not. Man is not ‘evolved’ from non-man. We may adapt within genus but man will not produce non-man and vice-versa.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.