Assessing the Reasons to Believe Model


(Brad Cooper) #8

I also have tremendous respect for Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. Rana, and RTB. As recent as January of this year (2018), at the ASA Southern California Day Conference, I asked Dr. Ross about his views on the descendants of Adam and Eve. And at that time, at least, he seemed to be of the view that there was no interbreeding with Neanderthals and that RTB had doubts about the reliability of the Neanderthal genetic evidence. I believe he suggested that perhaps Europeans had contaminated the Neanderthal genetic studies and perhaps researchers from Africa (presumably because they have been shown to not have interbred with Neanderthals) should investigate Neanderthal specimens as to be sure not to contaminate the genetic record. I could have misunderstood his comments and I don’t want to misrepresent what their model may show, but this is just my understanding of what I thought I heard in response to my question.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #9

@purposenation, welcome to the forums!

Dr. Ross is not a biologist and wisely defers to Rana and other biologists. I recently invited him to a session on the science of Adam, and gave a lecture on this in attendance. He wisely demurred from participation, even though I invited him.

For the currrent RTB model, it seems the focus should be on their written work:

That is where, in print, Dr. Ross acknowledges that evidence with Rana. What you are hearing from him in person is probably put in the speculative bin.

Though, if others hold that view, we should be clear the genetic evidence solidly rules out sole-genetic progenitor within the last 500,000 years. That interbreeding with Neanderthals is really helpful, as it brings in additional genetic diversity to allow for the hope of a single couple origin of Sapiens.

Just for the record, that is not terribly plausible for a range of technical reasons. How does he even know that it wasn’t Africans or Asians that were handling the material?


(Guy Coe) #10

Not sure why you’d stake the validity of “human exceptionalism” on whether or not we’d ever bred with neanderthals, by defining them as non-human. The “image of God” is what distinguishes us as exceptional, as distinct from the animal kingdom. We know too little about neanderthal culture to merely describe them as “brutish.” Such conceptions have more to do with a lack of imagination than with the available evidence, IMO. Don’t get the need for this kind of distancing.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #11

Don’t forget the Denosivans. And the other archaic humans that interbreed with our species. Also labs all over the world confirmed the interbreeding results. Unlikely to be contamination as Ancestry.com measures % neanderthal in 2 million+ DNA kits sequenced. Did you have your DNA sequenced? You may have some Denosivan DNA in your genome. I had zero Denosivan but 1.5% Neanderthal.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #12

Yes I know. We are going to deal with that too. I’m just saying Neanderthal, because that is what they have accepted. The RTB model is between a rock and hard place there. As “distasteful” as interbreeding is in their model (but not in a Genealogical Adam model), they need it to get enough diversity. Or so it seems.

True. End of summer you might get a chance to have that conversation with Fuz.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #13

2 posts were split to a new topic: Jack Collins and a Genealogical Adam


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #15

A post was split to a new topic: Wayne Grudem and Early Genesis


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #16

A post was split to a new topic: The Souls of our Ancestors


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #17

@Patrick, that is what we might be be doing here.

I am holding off testing the model too soon. I want to do with this with Dr. Rana and Dr. Roberts. They are honest scientists, and want to bring them along with this. This is, after all, an effort of peace. In the end, also, I hope their model stands.
http://peacefulscience.org/assess-rtb-model/


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #18

Can someone (@gbrooks9?) please post this http://peacefulscience.org/assess-rtb-model/ on the BioLogos forum topic (https://discourse.biologos.org/t/swamidass-to-dr-rana-invitation-to-engage-on-the-bridging-value-of-integrating-primate-evolution-with-de-novo-adam/38704) related to this?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #20

@jammycakes, I think you had a question about this post. Do you want to ask it here?


Neanderthals, Interbreeding, and Nephilim
(Brad Cooper) #21

It looks like they closed that discussion on June 13.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #22

3 posts were split to a new topic: Neanderthals and Nephilim


(Guy Coe) #23

So, in the interest of reviving this association and topic, I thought I’d excerpt a bit of their current fundraising letter.
This from Dr. Ross, whom I support and esteem highly:

“Recently, I came across a Facebook discussion on dinosaurs. What struck me was how much anger the Christians expressed towards scientists and science.
Chances are right now you can think of at least five people in your life who believe scientists are trying to knock down our faith or who simply refuse to talk about science. Why is that so true of so many Christians?
If you ask me, this reaction comes from fear. Millions have a deep-seated fear that the next big scientific discovery will be the one that shatters their faith. Millions more are afraid that if they ask science-faith questions --or even worse, voice their doubts --they’ll be pounced on and ridiculed, or labeled as not having enough faith.
Do you remember that fear? Before you discovered Reasons to Believe or other science apologetics, were you afraid that science might lead you away from your faith?”

I’ll include more later, if there’s interest.

Do you see this as a legitimate perspective from an OEC organization? Is it a fair way to raise funds? Personally, I think so.

The letter goes on to explain that they’re sending a free copy of their brand new DVD, “Meet Jeff Zweerink.”

“It’s Jeff’s talk from this years’ AMP conference, full of great information. But what I like best is the way Jeff shares his own struggles with fear and doubt. Jeff admits honestly that sometimes new discoveries challenge him. But, these are what scientists call “anomalies,” things we just can’t explain right now. They don’t derail the trend of scientific discovery toward greater and greater proof of God’s hand in nature. And, as Jeff clearly shows, engaging our with our doubts, instead of suppressing them, is actually the road to deeper faith!”

Good going, RTB. Thanks again for your ministry!


(Guy Coe) #24

This is a clear ministry opportunity TOWARDS RTB, is how I read this.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #25

I suppose its legitimate. They aren’t breaking any laws. They are talking about real insecurity that people have.

I just think that the Resurrection, God’s work in history to reveal himself, is much stronger than any “scientific apologetics.” I’d point to Jesus for confidence over any effort of my ministry. That’s just me though.


(Guy Coe) #26

Totally and 100 perecent agree! It’s the sine qua non of everything else.


(system) #27

(Jeremy Christian) #28

I don’t think this is an issue. Once the events of early Genesis are pinpointed in human history you’ll find that the interbreeding with Neanderthal was ancient history, as well as the Neanderthal species themselves, by the time Adam was created.

Because Adam was the introduction of free will, nothing that happened before that point was in conflict with God’s will. This is not bestiality.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #29

69 posts were merged into an existing topic: Jeremy Christian’s Take on Free Will