Does Evolution Allow for De Novo Creation?

@John_Harshman

I did.
And you berated me.
So i had to explain in more detail.

Now you are attempting to justify your questions. But see below!

Are you serious? Why do you suppose we discuss this matter daily?

@John_Harshman

Here (above) you ask a better question!

I have never met one… but there must be a few somewhere in America!

But i would replace the term “genetic” with “historical”. And im not sure “recent” is relevant.

You did what? I berated you for what? Where is this matter discussed daily?

YECs don’t accept established science, but they aren’t a serious problem because their influence is limited. Despite the current administration’s best efforts, they have had no influence on science funding, publication, or academic hiring/curricula. So far. They’re an annoyance that might in the future rise to the level of a problem for science. But not yet. And this is why I asked you for clarification.

Are you sure? Why? Then again, if you replace “genetic” with “historical”, that destroys the question. There are several possible Adams. To list a few:

  1. Created, recent (6-10ka), genetic Adam.
  2. Created, ancient (>700ka) genetic Adam.
  3. Uncreated, ancient (>700ka) genetic Adam.
  4. Created, recent genealogical Adam.
  5. Uncreated, recent genealogical Adam.
  6. Uncreated, recent historical Adam.

By “created” I refer to fiat creation of the couple (and Adam is short for Adam and Eve), out of the dust of the ground/rib or whatever. By “uncreated” I refer to descent from parents in the ordinary way. Genetic Adam is the sole ancestor of all humans: either the only couple, or a bottleneck of 2, or (requiring further miracles) the sole coalescent of the human genome. Genealogical Adam is one of many ancestors of all humans. Historical Adam is a couple that existed but are neither the sole genetic nor genealogical ancestors of everyone, and presumably original sin is transferred in some other way than by descent.

#1 is straight YEC. #2 is possibly OEC. #3 is the bottleneck scenario. #4 is what Swamidass is pushing. I don’t know anyone who favors #5, and I’d like to know why. I think @vjtorley favors #6. It’s not clear which the Catholic church is for. And I don’t know anyone who favors any other notion.

1 Like

There is also:

  1. Created, ancient (100kya to 200kya) genealogical Adam and genetic ancestor
  2. Uncreated, ancient (100kya to 200kya) genealogical Adam and genetic ancestor

Though, I would use the terms “De Novo” vs. “Chosen” rather than Created/Uncreated. Here, genetic ancestor just means we all inherit some, but not all DNA from them, because they did interbreed with other lines.

A lot of people do. Ben McFarland is an example, so is @Guy_Coe . That is one variation of the GA. I’m not pushing for de novo creation per se.

So why would anyone demand created Adam?

Why is “genetic ancestor” necessary or desirable here? Does the scenario differ in any significant way if all of Adam’s genetic material has been lost, or at least is not present in everyone? Does anyone go for either of those scenarios?

31 posts were split to a new topic: Why Desire Adam as Genetic Ancestor?

@swamidass,
If we run out Adam’s genetic legacy after around 7 generations… how is #7 even possible?

Remember that what you say is true on average, but that we still have genetic ancestors going back as far as you want. Any particular genealogical ancestor is unlikely to be one of the genetic ancestors, but some of them must be. Adam could, by chance, be one of those ancestors. Or he could have had some highly selectable trait that became fixed in the population for that reason. Or God could have caused fixation by a miracle.

A post was split to a new topic: Does YEC Affect Mainstream Science?

11 posts were split to a new topic: Considering a Sapien Adam 200 kya

@Patrick

There are atheists who write books on how to formulate ethics in the absence of God. There are other atheists who write books explaining why Boltzmann Brains don’t pose a significant problem for an atheistic multiverse. Other atheists write books trying to show how the disciples collectively hallucinated Jesus after his death. All that these atheists are trying to do is show that being an atheist is COMPATIBLE with what we know about life. There is no EVIDENCE to back up these claims, but that’s not the point. Whatever worldview one chooses, there are sticky problems you have to deal with. @swamidass is offering one solution to a sticky problem. How is that nothingness? Are all these atheist’s books also nothingness? If you want to be consistent, I think you should say they are.

Christians have the problem of evil to deal with, and some sticky issues with biblical historicity, and you have moral value, meaning, fine tuning, and existence itself. We’s all gots a lot of explaining to do.

2 Likes

My point about being “nothing” is that it doesn’t address today’s problems we face. Sure maybe God(s) were good at one time for social cohesion but today it is kind of a waste of time and very divisive to society. Dr. Swamidass is a prefect example. Here is an MD, scientist, researcher having to waste time and effort to “undoctrinate” Christians who somehow believe that evolution and the lack of a first couple Adam and Eve somehow represents a major tipping point for their faith. It really is a waste of time for educated people to really be discussing YEC, ID, OEC, and TE. We have real world problems to solve. Let’s work on them together and perhaps we might be able to accomplish something together.

1 Like

Patrick, I know that you are wrong about this, because the church is addressing today’s problems, in a very big way. If you only see the church as a series of molestations, you cannot see what else is visible. The church is absolutely on the front line of dealing with social issues globally. As I have mentioned to you in the past, there are huge and public organizations such as World Vision and Compassion International who are providing food, water, education, etc., globally. There are many other similar Christian organizations worldwide who are doing great work.

Potentially over and above that, there are multitudes of individuals and small groups who go out for weeks, months, and even years, spending their own money and vacation hours, to serve people who need it. I gave an example of my daughter Annie, who travelled to the Kashmir region in India three times before she was 21 to provide gifts for children and sewing machines and training for women whose husbands had divorced them or died. They provided the machines and training needed such that these women could support themselves and their families. Apart from this support, they would likely die, because their own culture does not support them. My other daughter, Ellie, travels with a group to Mexico, each Easter. Her church builds around 20 homes, from the ground up in a single week, for families that have none. There is no cost or obligation, they simply do this because there is a need. These are just two examples of hundreds of thousands of private ventures that provide food, farming, medical care, dental care, vaccinations, freedom from human trafficking and other sexual crimes, and more.

Finally, regarding Joshua, I assure you that he sees this work in a similar vein. That there is a need for many to be able to reconcile themselves to Jesus Christ, but that misunderstandings about scientific discovery have become a stumbling block to them. If you look seriously at today’s church, you will see that you are entirely incorrect about its effect on global society. I’m terribly sorry for any injustice that has occurred in the church, and those persons who have participated in abuse, etc., should be punished severely. There is no excuse for that behavior. That said, you are utterly missing the boat in regards to how the church is operating in the world today.

You are retired. I would invite you to participate in one of these trips to Mexico. You would be more than welcome to join. Come and see, first hand, what the church is doing… how the church is responding to the needs of its neighbors. You will be amazed at the degree of concern and care that is heaped upon those in need, as well as the generosity in terms of time, talent and treasures that are being shared. Please let me know if you’d like to spend a week in Mexico, helping out. I will gladly make sure it happens!! If you decide to go, I promise you that it will be the highlight of your life so far.

2 Likes

What is the church that you refer to?

1 Like

The charities you mention are doing great work. As does many secular charities. Do you call these organizations “the church”? I see them as charities who happen to be Christian.

1 Like
1 Like

Hi Patrick: As @Mung said above, I was referring generally to the Christian Church as a whole. All of the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christian churches. I certainly do not disagree that many, many secular charities do good work, also. There is no monopoly on charity whatsoever. The greater point that I was making is that the church (in the sense that I have used it) also does not have a monopoly on human flaw. It is as subject to the depravity of humanity as every other institution, family and individual. While that is so, the church does amazing amounts of good, for no other reason than the love of Christ.

If you were referring to the specific church that I mentioned regarding the home building project in Mexico, let me know and I’ll DM you a link. Have a great weekend! MC

1 Like

@mung Wow that is really vague. Who is Westminster Confession of Faith? And what authority or credentials do they have in defining such things?

What you refer to as “the church” is so vague, so ethereal. It is sort of like saying “nearly all of humanity”.

1 Like

How so? You asked for the definition of the church that people here were talking about—and Mung gave you a standard definition which has been recognized by many millions of Christians for centuries. How is that “useless”?

I find it difficult to believe that you would not be at least generally familiar with the Westminster Confession of Faith. In any case, the answers to your questions are just a Google search away. Even before the Internet, nearly every secular encyclopedia included an article answering those questions.

Your questions are a bit like arguing with a competent dictionary over the meaning of a well understood word. Word definitions are a reflection of common usage. The “authority” of a dictionary’s definition of a word—if the lexicographers did their jobs well—is in reflecting the understanding of the majority of speakers who use that word.

This topic also brings to mind one of my pet peeves: the silly argument in the form of a question “Then who or what created God?” The standard definition of God includes non-creation, the always existing One. So even atheist philosophers have no problems using the standard definition of God, despite the fact that they don’t personally affirm that such a being exists. Words have meanings. To reject their standard meanings for no good reason simply takes one into futility and nonsense. It makes meaningful dialogue difficult.

My second peeve along that line is the childish insistence by some that they must always spell God in lower-case (“god”), as if that makes some sort of substantive protest. Regardless of whether one affirms the existence of God, proper nouns in English are capitalized. So even if I don’t believe Thor or Krishna exist as real beings doesn’t mean that it is anything but ridiculous for me to insist on spelling those names “thor” and “krishna.” Indeed, if I believe that Thor and Krishna don’t exist as real beings, what do I achieve by misspelling their names? I only display my ignorance of basic English that I was supposed to learn in elementary school. (The rejection of such a standard convention reminds me of similar attempts-at-insult tactics which Ken Ham et al use, such as inserting the words “so-called scientist” before the name of some famous scientist they don’t like. They apparently think that the subject’s earned Ph.D. in a scientific field and/or their peer-reviewed publications and important discoveries can be summarily dismissed simply by adding an insulting jab before their name. There is far too much childish nonsense of this sort in far too much of the propaganda coming from both sides of those atheist vs. theist debates. As I’ve said many times before, the two sides often fall into surprisingly similar silliness.)

2 Likes