Does Evolution Allow for De Novo Creation?

Err, that’s what I wrote.

2 Likes

I was agreeing with you on the implications.

4 Likes

No, unfortunately it is for a book review on Amazon that hopeful I will never need to post. :disappointed_relieved:

1 Like

de novo creation of Pink unicorns is consistent with evolutionary science and also fit in with Genesis.

Good though that you can practice here. :slight_smile:

1 Like

In the end, if the book gets publish, I really won’t trash it on Amazon or Jerry Coyne’s site. I’ll bark a lot while it is being written in the hope of getting changes that doesn’t expose Joshua to to much unnecessary criticism but once it is off to the editor for publication, I’ll just watch and listen.

2 Likes

And I very much appreciate that @Patrick.

2 Likes

@John_Harshman,

You are ducking-&-weaving the one good reason to accept de novo creation of 2 humans… while at the same time attempting to foist “Last Thursdayism” on your audience!

Lets tackle the last issue first: Adopting Last Thursdayism requires overturning all of physics and geology in order to believe God created everything (including false memories) Last Thursday. This is the exact opposite of what Genealogical Adam is asking of Christians.

Instead, Christians are being asked to choose a minor set of miracles (the de novo creation of just one man and woman) in order to leave the logical seed of Original Sin intact despite accepting that humanity (with the exception of just 2 humans) evolved - - consistent with the preponderance of Physics, Geology and Archaeology!

The reason to accept the miracle is to avoid having to overturn all of established science!

It doesn’t require that, at least as I look at it.

Last Thursdayism requires that I throw out only the metaphysics. But I can keep physics and geology as part of a program of epistemology. I need only take the old geological age of the earth as a reference to theoretical entities – and, I might add, theoretical entities that are very important to the world of Last Thursdayism.

Of course, we could alternatively throw out Original Sin, or treat Original Sin as a theoretical entity from theology.

1 Like

That’s not quite true. One could avoid overturning all of established science just a little bit better by not accepting the miracle. The reason for accepting the miracle is because it’s needed, or so people believe, for some theological reason.

Now, why should Last Thursdayism require overturning anything? There is no conflict with physics, except of course that we know of no physical mechanism for miraculous creation. It doesn’t really overturn geology either, just shows that God simulated the end product of real processes. Fake history, but fake history that really could have happened. Sure, it’s more extreme than creation of one couple, but as I said it’s the end of the road that begins with that one bit of creation. Why stop at one?

According to Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga, “The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as “scientific,” it cannot refer to God’s creative activity (or any sort of divine activity).” The possibility of divine intervention in nature is not only neglected, but positively dismissed.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Methodological_naturalism

If this is the case I cannot see how the de novo creation of Adam and Eve could be consistent with evolutionary science and methodological naturalism.

Typical ID rhetoric @mung. Easy solution. Plantinga is just wrong here. Science does not consider God. Science is neutral and silent about his action.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean so if there is something you intended to communicate to me by writing it perhaps you could re-phrase it.

ok, that’s an answer I can respect. You believe Plantinga is wrong about methodological naturalism.

But this is true only because his action is not visible. If, for example, there were a mass of data explicable only by poofing of species into existence, science would have to consider that hypothesis.

1 Like

If God did poof something into existence visibly in front of you, it would still be outside the purview of science. In fact, you would not believe it. You would most likely think it was mistake of your memory or some other perceptual error. You would seek to replicate it. If you doubted your skepticism, you would try to replicate it. Succeeding at replicating it, because God did it again for you, you’d start to grow confident you found a new natural law. Failing at replicating it, because God did not do it again, you’d be convinced it was just a quirk of an unsettled mind, or a prank someone was playing on you, or your ancient religious instincts giving a last gasp in your mind.

1 Like

I disagree. Any phenomenon can be investigated. Of course if it happened only once, and nothing like it ever happened again, science couldn’t do much with it. And if God decided to mess with me, that would be a problem. Science can’t deal with capricious behavior on the part of an omnipotent being. But if there were repetition and/or any sort of regularity, that we could investigate. If, for example, it were to turn out that each species showed no sign of being related to any other species, one would have to infer creation.

1 Like

Sounds like you agree with me then. Not sure I see the disagreement except perhaps in the term “purview”.

The point is that this is not merely about God action being invisible. At question also is our ability to see.

Not clear on what we’re agreed on.

Because my prejudices prevent me from observing creation? Yours too? Or what?

@John_Harshman (cc: @jongarvey) - -

You ask: “Now, why should Last Thursdayism require overturning anything? There is no conflict with physics, except of course that we know of no physical mechanism for miraculous creation. It doesn’t really overturn geology either, just shows that God simulated the end product of real processes. Fake history, but fake history that really could have happened. Sure, it’s more extreme than creation of one couple, but as I said it’s the end of the road that begins with that one bit of creation. Why stop at one?”

If God creates the Universe last Thursday, he also has to create star light, in mid-flight, on its way to the eyes of Earthlings!

Fake star light … for something that didn’t really exist 5 billion light years away. < This is overturning science.

As for accepting the de novo creation of Adam and Eve - - you don’t seem to understand the crucial “linch-pin” nature of Paul’s Romans 5 discussion on Adam and his perceived role in the broadcasting of Original Sin to all future generations.

There is one other way of dealing with Romans 5: convince Creationists that they are misinterpreting the figurative nature of Romans 5!

This is, in fact, the strategy (it seems) that BioLogos prefers! You can see it in their most recent articles. They are working on the issue

of inerrancy and how to interpret Paul’s various statements.

However, it is my experience that it is harder to pry an American Creationist away from the Augustinian interpretation of Romans 5 than to get a Nazarene to go to a topless beach!

Thus, under the circumstances, the Creationist must decide whether it is better to reject Romans 5, or reject the preponderance of Scientific evidence for Evolution and/or an Old Earth.

The answer is usually: “We must reject the material evidence science!” But this is a false dilemma! It is not simply one or the other choice. There is a third way, a middle way: where

the Christian gets to accept the miraculous event of Adam and Eve’s creation (much like the miraculous creation of Jesus himself!) - - and all the rest of Evolutionary science is no longer

a problem for his faith!

But only 7 days worth of it. And he doesn’t even have to create the stars themselves. So I go with Last Thursdayism as the most parsimonious theory.