Comments on Time for Genealogy



I’m happy to hear that you have no scientific objection to special creation. Do you think GA can be taught in public schools? Do you see the irony in Joshua’s rejection of ID on one hand while proposing GA on the other hand?

The Time Comes For Genealogy
(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #2

GA certainly doesn’t run afoul of any science because it is carefully crafted to be invisible to scientific inquiry. For example GA is a specially created person with a genome that is invisible in all its living decedents. It is elegant in the it keeps science and faith separate and incompatible. GA is not science and must be a matter of faith.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #3



If science and faith are incompatible, and GA is a matter of faith, doesn’t that make science and GA incompatible? Yet Joshua’s argument is that they are not incompatible.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #5

A specially created GA has to be invisible to science as science is neutral on special creations.

(Guy Coe) #6

This. It is not elegant at all unless it makes them compatible --which it does, while bringing scientific scrutiny to bear.


Even better. :wink:

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #8

There is no compatibility at all. It is a matter of Faith only that one of the many genealogical ancestors of every living individual on the planet was a specially created person by God. It is just an assertion by one person. GA is impossible to prove nor disprove by science. Did GA have parents? If not we are back to the old question, “Did GA have a navel?”


Do you have an opinion then as to whether it is a “god of the gaps” argument?

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #10

It is not a “god of the gaps” argument because GA doesn’t fill any scientific gaps in knowledge. Science doesn’t need a specially created man to explain recent human history.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #11

It’s not really ironic, but it is instructive.

I reject ID because, as far as I know, the arguments they focus on are in error. They are bad science, even though I have no problem, in principle, with special creation. In contrast, the GA is grounded in solid science, so why wouldn’t I propose an idea that highlights solid science?

The fact that atheist biologists like @T_aquaticus have no problem with the GA demonstrates that ID misdiagnosed the problem. The problem is not with bias among biologists, who are intrinsically opposed to special creation. The problem is that biologists don’t like poor arguments in biology, and ID arguments in biology have been poor.

(George) #12


Genealogical Adam cannot be taught in public schools. It is not a scientific discussion of humanity, it is a THEOLOGICAL discussion of human origins that conflicts the least with science… but it is not an exclusively scientific presentation.

The science of Genealogy is relevant… but genealogy does not “convert” special creation into a scientific matter.

(George) #13

Naturally, @mung, I am in agreement with @swamidass 's position, and with his explanation of his position.

Public schools also do not study the miraculous birth of Jesus … or his resurrection. And for the same reasons.


That’s not my understanding of a god of the gaps argument. Perhaps I need to read up. Joshua is proposing two theoretical entities, the biblical Adam and Eve.

It just seems wrong to say that science can have nothing to say about real events and real historical entities. How is science even possible, if entities can pop into existence willy-nilly and influence future events. It’s like allowing supernatural events into science, and we all know that to do that would make science impossible.


(George) #15


You missed one of my points in the primer.

There IS a difference between the significance of saying:

“Science can find no evidence for the presence of 2 elephants in Grandma’s large living room…”


“Science can find no evidence for the presence of 2 flies in Grandma’s large living room…”

The first statement would not be considered surprising to those who are pretty sure there are no elephants anywhere near Grandma and her house. So a finding like this might be considered to be a credible “diagnostic” on the state of elephants in that house.

But the second statement is much more arguable. Sure, science has the ability to distinguish a shot glass with a fly in it from a second shot glass with no fly. But when you expand the search area to something the size of a room, or, say, a movie theater, I don’t think too many scientists are going to slam the desk and say “Case closed! - - No Flies!”.

De Novo creation of Adam/Eve is very much on par with the miraculous circumstances of the birth of, and the resurrection of, Jesus. If a scientist were in the room, he might have a pretty strong opinion of what just happened… but nobody is really surprised when we say: evolutionary scientists cannot detect the miraculous appearances of one man and one woman, 6000 years ago!


Science is about what we can test, and GA can’t be tested for. Therefore, science is silent on the topic. As others have stated, GA is a theological position that has the benefit of not being proven false by known science. GA is also not supported by positive evidence, but that would only be an issue if Joshua was claiming to have positive scientific support.

(George) #18


Well stated! @Mung, how can you contradict Mr. T’s excellent summation?


Classic god of the gaps.


I would agree, but it doesn’t matter as much for questions of faith. If someone were trying to make a scientific or logical argument then it would matter a lot more.

(George) #21


It is not a Gap scenario.

It is accepting the evidence for evolution… while science accepts that they cannot speak to the issue of a 2-human creation by an act of God!