Even Richard Dawkins is Right Sometimes (Is the Biblical story of Adam and Eve a myth?)

Religious Dispatches ^ | 11/28/2011 | Paul Wallace

[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.

[GourmetDan]

"And here you stumble inartfully into the reason why science is useful and creationism is of no use."

Here you fall predictably into logical fallacy and demonstrate once again your complete inability to think-critically. In this case you engage in yet another strawman attack on creationists supported by an appeal to the argument from ignorance

Assuming that the 'mechanism' will support the theory of evolution when 'fully known' is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. You can only make that as a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. The 'mechanism' may completely falsify the theory of evolution when fully understood.

Creationists are not defined by the strawman that you propose despite your incessant attempts at imposing them.

[metmom]

My favorite Dawkins quote is “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

College educated idiots.......

Their brainwashing has been complete.

[RobbyS]

The difference is between the highly speculative approach of Descartes and the experimental approach of Pascal. Descartes thought that the atmosphere extended to the moon. Hence the idea of a balloon trip to the moon was the subject of a popular play. M. Pascal took a barometer to the top of a mountain and obtained data showing that the air pressure dropped as one ascended the mountain. Descartes also had his grand notion of vortices, which of course Newton shot to pieces. I say that micro-descends into macro when you reach the point where the data is scanty. Like history turns into archeology when the documents are no long available.

[allmendream]

The mechanism need not have anything at all to do with biological evolution for it to be understandable, predictable, replicable and able to be fit within a scientific model or theory.

The miracle from God need not have anything at all to do with biological evolution for it to not be understandable, predicable, replicable or able to fit within a scientific model or theory.

It isn't just biology where creationism is found woefully inadequate towards being of any practical use in terms of application prediction or explanation.

Your illogical strawman is that it need have anything at all to do with evolution.

Science is of use.

Creationism is useless.

Proposing a physical mechanism to explain physical phenomena has paid off time and time again.

Proposing a miraculous mechanism to explain physical phenomena has been an intellectual dead end leading to loony tune weirdos insisting the Sun is in orbit around the Earth and other illogical idiocies.

[RobbyS]

God is not a mechanism, he is not a clockmaker. If you investigate Newton’s theological work and his work in alchemy, you realize that Voltaire and his brethren never did get into his head and understand the sources of his thought. Neither did Locke, who was a personal friend. Newton was pretty close to a mystic. He certainly was an odd duck.

[allmendream]

Then why do creationists keep insisting a miracle by God is the explanation for/ mechanism behind physical phenomena that are easily explained by physical means?

Newton, when not doing science - was an absolute mess as far as alchemy, theology, mysticism, etc.

None of that ever accomplished anything - only when he proposed physical means to explain physical phenomena did he come upon anything scientific and useful.

[RobbyS]

Exactly what is a miraculous mechanism? In any case. the effort to reduce all phenomena to a set of differential equation is futile. It is rationalism gone amok. All knowledge is the result of investigation and experience of the concrete.

[allmendream]

When someone insists that the rapid differentiation of all species from those that could fit on the Ark was through the power of God and not through any sort of physical process - that would be proposing a miracle as the mechanism.

When all fossils and geological formations are attempted to be explained through a flood that lasted ‘40 days and 40 nights’ that is proposing a miracle as the mechanism.

This is part and parcel of creationism, and shows why intellectually it is a total dead end leading to no useful applications and without any explanatory or predictive power.

[DManA]

Here’s what seems reasonable to me (I don’t claim infallibility and I reserve the right to change my mind)

The text is talking exclusively about HUMAN death. Specifically about spiritual death - death of the soul. There is no reason to believe it is talking about the death of animals or plants. I don’t see evidence in Scripture that God’s perfect plan included eternal animals and plants.

[GourmetDan]

"The mechanism need not have anything at all to do with biological evolution for it to be understandable, predictable, replicable and able to be fit within a scientific model or theory."

And any mechanism of any type that is not fully known may just as easily refute a natural origin when fully understood. I thought that was obvious but apparently not.

"It isn't just biology where creationism is found woefully inadequate towards being of any practical use in terms of application prediction or explanation."

You generate yet another strawman to denigrate creationists. Is that all you have?

"Your illogical strawman is that it need have anything at all to do with evolution."

As I explained above, any mechanism of any type that is not fully known may just as easily refute a natural origin when fully understood. The critical-thinking error is not limited to evolution. That was merely the example at hand.

"Science is of use. Creationism is useless."

Only in fantasy-land.

"Proposing a physical mechanism to explain physical phenomena has paid off time and time again."

Now you are using the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance to imply that physical existence necessarily requires a natural creation (whatever that would be). To explain it again, this is a philosophical belief, not a scientific fact.

"Proposing a miraculous mechanism to explain physical phenomena has been an intellectual dead end leading to loony tune weirdos insisting the Sun is in orbit around the Earth and other illogical idiocies."

Another strawman to set up the fallacy of appeal to ridicule. Wonderful...

[allmendream]

If what I say is a strawman then it should be easy for you to point out all the practical applications that have come from proposing miraculous mechanisms to explain physical phenomena.

Science is about proposing physical mechanisms for physical phenomena - and it has been very successful.

What useful applications have come from proposing supernatural causation for physical phenomena?

And anyone who thinks the Sun goes around the Earth and then appeals to LOGIC deserves ridicule.

Ridicule is the proper social response to the ridiculous.

Geocentrism is absolutely ridiculous!

Creationism and Geocentrism go hand in hand - once you get in the habit of discounting reality in favor of your favorite theological interpretation - you may as well go around thinking the Sun goes around the Earth!

LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!

[DManA]

I have read articles that claim we are on the verge of deploying a universal flu vaccine. As I understand it scientists have discovered structures in the virus that are universally the same across all flue viruses and do not mutate. Scientific methods are discovering the true secrets of life.

BTW, there are creationist scientist who do very good science. Many in the life sciences. So while I don’t agree with them, I don’t see creationism as a huge threat to society.

[GourmetDan]

"If what I say is a strawman then it should be easy for you to point out all the practical applications that have come from proposing miraculous mechanisms to explain physical phenomena."

You certainly are insistent upon imposing strawman arguments on the discussion.

"Science is about proposing physical mechanisms for physical phenomena - and it has been very successful."

To explain again, you are using the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance to imply that physical existence necessarily requires a natural creation (whatever that would be). To explain yet it again, this is a philosophical belief, not a scientific fact.

"What useful applications have come from proposing supernatural causation for physical phenomena?"

What's this? Another strawman?

"And anyone who thinks the Sun goes around the Earth and then appeals to LOGIC deserves ridicule."

And yet another strawman?

"Ridicule is the proper social response to the ridiculous."

And yet another strawman to set up the fallacy of appeal to ridicule?

"Geocentrism is absolutely ridiculous!"

As I have explained many times, geocentrism and geokineticism are equivalent under GR. The fact that you find that ridiculous is irrelevant.

" And anyone who thinks the Sun goes around the Earth and then appeals to LOGIC deserves ridicule."

And yet another strawman to set up the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

"Creationism and Geocentrism go hand in hand - once you get in the habit of discounting reality in favor of your favorite theological interpretation - you may as well go around thinking the Sun goes around the Earth!"

And strawmen and logical fallacy are the foundation of your posts.

"LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!LOL!"

Use of the fallacy of appeal to ridicule duly noted.

[RobbyS]

You are confusing creationism with a certain brand of fundamentalism. The traditional religious doctrine of creationism hold that the soul of each human being is infused by God out of nothing at the moment of its infusion into the body. But this is a secondary creation. The first creation is of all things from nothing. This was a Judeo-Christian idea, and contrary to the Greek notion of the eternity of the world. Its origins is probably why a herd of scientists are trying to think of alternatives, such as the notion of multiple universes. Odd, when they can’t handle the one we have! Tradition does not hold that we must take every one in the Bible literally, How could this be so when we often do not know what the writer had in mind?

[guitarplayer1953]

I take it you do not beleive in God?

[metmom]

Newton, when not doing science - was an absolute mess as far as alchemy, theology, mysticism, etc.

Alchemy was the science of the day. Applying today's knowledge to yesterday's activities and judging them by it is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

If you're going to try to smear creationism and religious belief, try to at least be honest about it.

[HarleyD]

When Paul states “Adam was formed first and then Eve”, it leaves very little room for doubt that there was a literal Adam and Eve. It's similar to listing them in a genealogy as Matthew or Luke does. Surely you wouldn't say that a listing of your great-great-grandfather in some body’s genealogy book is not to be taken literally.

Now whether or not you accept the scriptures as fact is another issue.

[HarleyD]

Ping to above.

[metmom]

The point was that evolution isn’t useful in predicting what the specific change would occur in a flu virus to enable scientists to make a vaccine that would work against what was predicted to show up. They can’t predict in which direction it will go, only that it will change. Therefore the need for a universal flu vaccine.

The prediction that the virus will change is one any person can make and is as useful as saying climate will change.

Well, yeah. We figured that one out long ago.

If they could accurately predict the next change and be consistently right instead of like the track record meteorologists have predicting hurricane seasons, I’d be impressed.

Stating the obvious isn’t impressive and isn’t necessarily science.

[DManA]

The point is we won’t have to predict pretty soon.