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.
I’ll second that question. Especially, let’s hear about the intentional errors.
And only fools believe the garden (or a forest, coral reef or galaxy) happened by chance.
I don't think you know as much about creationist writings as even I do about darwinist writings. Numerous analyses using standard taxonomies have been done on this. Where is yours?
That’s one thing I’m going to make sure of with my kids,
that they understand Darwin’s theory thoroughly,
especially the assumptions inherent therein,
and the falsification criteria that Darwin himself stated.
It is indeed a “strawman” argument when you attack assertions of the other side while demonstrating that you have no clue as to what is being asserted.
The example you gave of all the species fitting on the Ark is but one of many.
I am not the one who uses logical fallacy as argument. This is just another strawman.
"How could a population with such a mechanism survive in competition with populations without this mechanism?"
You have it backwards.
"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?"
Strawman and fallacy of affirming the consequent noted.
"Yes, Einstein is not a Geocentrist. Do you therefore think you have a superior understanding of the ramifications of relativity than Einstein?"
Another strawman after I explained Ellis' position.
"“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."
Not according to Hoyle.
"“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."
You have it backwards again.
"But you will continue holding up your talisman - thinking that it protects you from looking like a Geocentrist loony fool. Good luck with that!"
More name-calling...
Moreover they believe evolution happens at a rate far in excess of that ever proposed by any competent evolutionary biologist.
And yet they claim to not believe in evolution.
They are obviously quite confused.
Some people who believe in magical babies conceived without a human father call themselves evolutionists as well. They are also very confused.
Using miraculous explanations is not and never will be science. Creationists, when involved in Creationism - engage in apologetics not science.
But I do think miracles are necessary to explain miraculous events - like the virgin birth of my Lord Jesus the Christ.
So what mechanism would you invoke to explain the semi common descent of all extant species from the “kinds” present on the Ark?
Do you think every extant species was already there - or that “kinds” can give rise to new species within a “kind”?
If so you accept the semi-common descent of species AND evolution. Even if you think it took a miracle to do it.
So far from rejecting evolution and the (semi) common descent of species - you would be accepting it - just proposing that it happened miraculously rather than through well known and understood and observable mechanisms.
No. You don’t give Scripture the respect it deserves if you believe this refers only (or primarily) to physical genetic lineage as opposed to Spiritual lineage.
God bless you with raising kids. Mine are almost out the house now. I hope I’ve taught them that anybody, no matter how educated should be required to belly up to the bar of reason. They should be able to effectively summarize not only their own views but those of people they disagree with. They should be able to clearly articulate the weaknesses of their own positions. They should be willing to cite sources for recognized experts that support their position and the best sources for a contrary view. They should be able to ask hypothetical questions such as ‘what concrete finding or laboratory result can you conceive of that would cause you to change your views” Etc.
If you can send them into the world with that you’ve done your job and then some.
You are confused if you believe that Scripture must be meant literally for it to be inerrant. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture precisely BECAUSE I believe it has deeper significance than you ascribe to it. It is not primarily a history book in the modern sense.
I’m not talking about merely the “spirit” of Scripture, I am talking about its “actual meaning”.
Um...you worship a God descended from a fictional character in a myth?
You follow a religion with doctrine mainly discussed in epistles that assumes this fictional character was a real person whose choices affected every human ever born?
Really?
I worship the God that is God, and God is real.
But that doesn’t at all address my point - that being that if one accepts the story of Noah as literal, then one accepts the (semi) common descent of species and evolution - and at a rate many thousands of times that every proposed by evolutionary biology.
That many have no problem at all accepting that a 2% change in genetic DNA could happen between two rodents in a few hundred years and that such change would be “micro” - but have immense problems with accepting that a 2% change in genetic DNA could happen between humans and chimps even after six million years and insist that such change would be “macro”.
Anyone with any brains at all can see this is a HUGE disconnect.
And the "actual meaning" when God told people there were plants before there was a Sun and birds before there were land animals was...?
There were plants before there was a Sun?
Adam obtained his soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Whether there were other homo erectus on earth is not addressed in the Bible and not terrbily important.
God can't tell the difference between homo erectus and dust? Is His eyesight poor?
So why did Jesus, Hosea and Paul all discuss Adam and Eve as if they were real people, including basing doctrine on their experiences? Why did one of the Gospel writers list this fictional character (Adam) as Jesus' ancestor?
And, moreover, science confirmed just a few years ago that we were all descended from one woman. What happened to that? Has it been disproved? If not, why is this writer ignoring it? If so, why should I place my faith in this pronouncement of what "science has confirmed?"
A man who worked with your God during three years of His earthly ministry says he was descended from a fictional character.
Your God taught on marriage using this fictional character's experiences and origin as the basis for how every married man and women should approach the marriage bond.
A man commissioned by your God to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles wrote most of the New Testament, and in case after case he hangs the whole Gospel on the idea that Adam existed and that his sins condemned us all.
But that doesn’t at all address my point -
I was not addressing your point. That's why my post didn't address your point.
Anyone with any brains at all can see this is a HUGE disconnect.
Ah, what would a theistic evolutionist be without an insult? It's like a lawyer without a briefcase or a mechanic without a socket set.
Answer me this from your great faith:
Why couldn’t God do a better job of describing the beginning of the world than telling people there were plants before there was a Sun?
Also, how does your faith reconcile a Gospel that says death came into the world via Adam with a theory that assumes the death of millions or billions of creatures before humans ever showed up?
Using miraculous explanations is not and never will be science. Creationists, when involved in Creationism - engage in apologetics not science.
But I do think miracles are necessary to explain miraculous events - like the virgin birth of my Lord Jesus the Christ.
So what mechanism would you invoke to explain the semi common descent of all extant species from the “kinds” present on the Ark?
Do you think every extant species was already there - or that “kinds” can give rise to new species within a “kind”?
If so you accept the semi-common descent of species AND evolution. Even if you think it took a miracle to do it.
So far from rejecting evolution and the (semi) common descent of species - you would be accepting it - just proposing that it happened miraculously rather than through well known and understood and observable mechanisms.
1)It is a miracle that anything other than G-d Himself exists. It is only "natural" for G-d to exist. The existence of all other entities/realities are a miracle, "the result of omnipotence acting on nothing."
2)Why don't you ask Richard Dawkins what he thinks of your "virgin birth" and how science views it? And it doesn't take a miracle to explain the birth of a baby. What kind of "evolutionist" believes in the evolution of a universe in which miracles are constantly violating natural law?
3)The only difference between the "virgin birth" (or any other alleged "miracle" of chrstianity) and the literal truth of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is sociological: the "virgin birth" built "western civilization" while Genesis 1-11 only built a trailer park. Oh, and the believers in Genesis are subhuman neanderthals whereas believers in the "virgin birth" are geniuses--like those illiterate peasants who crawl on their knees to kiss statues. But then, those peasants vote Democrat, so I guess their religiosity is all right.
4)What you fail to understand is that I don't take a position on "evolution" or "science" per se at all. I merely take the position that the entire Torah--including the first eleven chapters of Genesis--must be historically and factually accurate because they were written by G-d. Does that disallow evolution? Fine. Does it require it? Equally fine. Why should I pay any attention at all to anyone who says these things "couldn't possibly have happened?" Especially when that same someone claims that Mary made the sun dance over Portugal in 1917? Why don't you ask Mr. Dawkins what he thinks of that little factoid while you're at it?
So, let's review:
Virgin Birth: Real and reasonable.
God in the flesh being crucified and raised from the dead: Real and reasonable.
Following said God even though His chroniclers say he was descended from a fictional character: Real and reasonable.
Natural selection resulting in a new chromosome: Real and reasonable.
Noah's Ark: Ludicrous and idiotic.
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.