Continuing the discussion from Realism in Science and Scripture.
Jay Johnson (@Jay313) has replied to me privately with the following response to my review:
Hi Daniel. I would’ve replied on the forum, but it seems I don’t have the ability to post. Feel free to post this there on my behalf. Or not. Up to you.
You’re aware, I hope, that Joshua is a TE. As I noted over on the BL forum:
You obviously haven’t read/listened to my first two posts at Becoming Adam. In the third installment of Adam’s Evolutionary Journey, I will offer evidence for my view. Some will even accuse me of being a concordist. Keep an eye out!
This doesn’t follow. God is the God of truth, and we are his servants. Therefore, we are servants of the truth, no matter the source. We should interpret Genesis in a way that accords with reality, not flies in the face of it.
The question of the burden of proof has to do with science, not the interpretation of Genesis. The “evidence” for crossing the Bass Strait is Scripture itself? Huh? Swamidass claims to be putting his hypothesis to the evidence. He has no evidence, so he attempts to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic. There’s a word for that. I’ll let you look it up. In any case, Dr. O’Connell and Dr. Bowdler both said the same thing. The null hypothesis applies.
You realize, of course, that this is the YEC argument about the age of the earth. The slippery slope isn’t really that slippery. I take a “non-realist” view of those passages in Scripture that obviously should be interpreted non-literally. It’s really not that difficult to tell the difference. In literary analysis, it’s called “genre.”
What sort of lame insult is that, calling TEs Christianity into question? Pitiful.
Good Lord, you can’t be serious. Was the crossing from Siberia into North America likewise a miracle? Or the isthmus into South America? What other ordinary event from history must be turned into a miracle to satisfy GAE?
I fail to see the difference between your moderate view and YEC or Flat Earth.
You tried valiantly, but Torley had the only cogent attempt to my language challenge, and even he didn’t quite get there. You failed to address the more difficult question, though: How were Adam and Eve socialized? Good luck.
You have seriously confused Genealogical Adam and Eve with Scripture. Where, exactly, does Scripture give evidence that people crossed the Bass Strait? That’s just silly.
So the new rallying cry of GAE is: “We’re not as unscientific as YEC and OEC. Come join us!”
Yes, and that a sign of a big problem. GAE can be put anywhere one wishes. William Lane Craig and Ann Gauger want 500 kya? No problem. YEC wants 4000 B.C.? No problem. Hey, Methodists, we have 10,000 B.C. on sale, if you’d like a historical Adam at that date. And if it no longer matters whether everyone is related to Adam by A.D. 1, you can even place him at Rohde’s original estimate of 1500 B.C. Why not? What’s stopping you?
There you go. Wasn’t that easy?