I don’t laugh at that idea, but purely because it isn’t very funny. It certainly isn’t my position, and I wish you would stop attributing attitudes to me that I don’t believe and have never expressed. Last Thursdayism is the endpoint of a continuum that creation of two people is near the start of. My problem is that I can’t see any point along that continuum at which we can draw a line and say “on this side the ideas are absurd and unacceptable while on that side they’re just fine”. The basic problem of Last Thursdayism is still also the basic problem of special creation, no matter how restricted.
1 Like
@John_Harshman writes: "Last Thursdayism is the endpoint of a continuum that creation
of two people is near the start of. My problem is that I can’t see any point along that continuum
at which we can draw a line and say “on this side the ideas are absurd and unacceptable while
on that side they’re just fine”.
John, I think you do a fine job arguing your self out of a refutation. If believing just 2 humans
were miraculously created is the cognitive price to pay in order to accept the preponderance
of evidence that thoroughly supports Evolution, that is a much better arrangement than
believing that Big Bang was faked by God and that the Earth and all humans, including
the faked memories the humans have, were created miraculously Last Thursday, in order
to be able to overturn all scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is incredibly old.
The beginning of a continuum is "a small moment of the miraculous that enables
one to accept science" - - while the end of the continuum is "a huge array of miraculous
events in order to explain away the vast bulk of all scientific evidence and analysis.
You say you cannot find a line along that continuum which indicates the boundary
between the “aceptable” and the “absurd”.
But I have no problem finding such a line… it is right after the very first milestone
__on the continuum: any arrangement that allows a Creationist to accept rather __
than to reject science is a pretty good arrangement!
I think you do a poor job of explaining what the heck you’re talking about.
So what are you actually saying? That creation of A&E is less absurd than Last Thursdayism? Congratulations for arguing against a stand that nobody takes. Your argument appears to be a purely political one: accept absurdity if it achieves a result you desire. Fine. But you shouldn’t claim that this is a science-friendly thing to do. It’s inimical to science, though less so than Last Thursdayism. I am likewise certain that calling you a nicer guy than Joseph Stalin is not high praise.
Incidentally, there’s something wrong with your line spacing, and you should look into fixing it. You should also recover your ability to quote.
1 Like
I don’t think I have. Can we agree that in order for something to “be science” it must be “consistent with science”? And that if something is not “consistent with science” it cannot “be science”?
In this you are incorrect.
Yes, but you have just said the same thing twice in different words, and neither of them is relevant to your earlier claim.
1 Like
I’m trying to lead the horse to water John. It’s a step-by-step process. First we find what we can both agree on. You think I am conflating what is science and what is consistent with science and I am trying to show you why I am not. Are you interested or is your mind already made up?
I see.
I’m not that interested, because you show no sign of being able to support your position. My mind is made up because so far that’s what the evidence shows; but of course I’m willing to change my mind given other evidence. So far your step-by-step process hasn’t budged from its starting position. Let me know when you have an argument.
So what scientific methodology can be used to study these miracles? What would the experiments look like?
2 Likes
@John_Harshman writes: "I think you do a poor job of explaining what the heck you’re talking about.
So what are you actually saying? That creation of A&E is less absurd than Last Thursdayism?
Congratulations for arguing against a stand that nobody takes."
John, when you say “against a stand that nobody takes” - - are you saying nobody thinks the special
creation of Adam & Eve is as absurd as Last Thursdayism? Or, are you saying that everybody thinks
special creation of Adam & Eve is as absurd as Last Thursdayism?
I suppose it doesn’t really matter what you intended with that last phrase. It is obvious that the
little miracle of creation of a man and a woman is a small and tidy affair … (like the immaculate
birth of Jesus, or his resurrection)… having no comparison to the idea of rejecting all the Physics,
Geology and Archaeology of the world - - because Evolutionists refuse to accept that God could
ever make a man and a woman on his own.
John, I think you have been an atheist for too long … you forget how reasonable all this sounds
to many Christians with scientific professions.
What alternative do you offer these Christian professionals? It seems you would say:
“Well, you are just going to have to get over it … either reject your religion or keep your job.”
Yes.
I do not understand the connection between the first and last parts of that sentence.
The question that really needs answering is why it sounds reasonable.
Once again you attribute to me a crazy position I have never expressed and do not hold. Please stop that.
Now, what can I offer people (including scientists) who want to believe in a specially created Adam and Eve? I suppose at a minimum I can try to get them to understand why they have that need, and whether it’s a real need. Do you have that need? If so, why? Why, if you demand original sin, can’t that have happened in two humans who came about in the ordinary way? We don’t have to get into what a weird thing original sin is.
Why have your posts become so hard to read just recently? Have you changed computers?
I’ll agree with @John_Harshman about this:
Your posts have become harder to read, what with that double spacing.
Actually, I agree with John on some other points too, but no need to belabor those.
@John_Harshman , @nwrickert, and the General Audience…
John_Harshman writes: “Why have your posts become so hard to read
just recently? Have you changed computers?”
John, the quick answer? Well, just about!
Here are the details… so we can all recognize them in the future.
Ever since my employer changed my department’s system configuration, I
have been unable to access the discourse system from my laptop. If I
wanted to respond or make a posting, I had to walk out into the lobby
(and sometimes even outside of the building) to get out of the signal
block shadow that my employer imposes on people who don’t own company
phones. Why? To make a point … I’m sure.
Today, however, I noticed that discourse emails were coming my way
into one of my secondary folders!!! And what’s more … the emails
said I could respond via email, instead of via the internet!
Woo hoo!!!
But, unfortunately, I never saw how my emails were “landing”! Now
that Neil has mentioned the “double-spaced” format, I found exactly
the switch that should fix that particular problem! Until I get a
look at my posts from my smart phone, I’ll reduce the number of
postings that come via that method. Don’t want to drive you crazy
with how my posts LOOK … as well as what they SAY, right?
See you online soon I hope…
George
1 Like
Makes a big difference. Next, try using HTML tags when quoting. But no, that doesn’t work. How about the local tags with the square brackets?
Yes, that seems to work.
1 Like
@gbrooks9, if you can, please drop get rid of the word wrapping too. That would help immensely.
1 Like
It would seem you have no appreciation for the dilemma in which some science-loving Christians find themselves. If they travel in evangelical circles they know that YECs are convinced that Christianity is literally invalidated by a belief that Adam and Eve are not historically real live persons! Faced with this view, they are torn between rejecting an old Earth and rejecting all Evolutionary science … rather than invalidate their Faith.
It is not “political” or “frivolous” to be able to offer to a person, in this situation, a way to allow an extra miracle (the creation of Adam and Eve in a way that science is not equipped to refute) - - in order to retain all the evidential bodies of science that support an Old Earth and and the billions of years of Earth’s history.
You either “get it” or you dont, John. Ive met lots of unbelieving agnostics and atheists who think everything is the way THEY see the world… and i can assure you that this breakthrough is for Christians… not for their detractors!
I see your point, though it still seems nearly pointless. It makes more sense (at least to me), to adopt an allegorical view of Adam and Eve.
And this is appears to be the renewed focus for BioLogos.
The interesting problem is that many Evangelical Christians are fine with “figurative interpretations” … right up until you bring up Original Sin!
You see… the Western Church is subconsciously quite fixated on Original Sin being real!
How do i know?: i know because when i suggested to some BioLogos volunteers , who had been preaching figurative interpretations for years… that Original Sin was ALSO a position
that should be treated as a figurative notion… i was practically tossed out of the discussion!
So… when you offer figurative interpretations to those who reject any such idea… sometimes you just have to develop a theological solution that lets them KEEP their literal idea… and STILL lets them keep the body of science!
They are getting that more from their traditions (such as Calvinism) than from Genesis.
1 Like
Well, in fact they get it from Augustine who got it from a bad translation of that part of Romans.
And Augustine’s purpose was to exculpate God from humanity’s terrible situation.
Prior to Augustine, like with Eusebeus, humanity’s situation was not considered so awful. Eusebeus considered God’s use of sin to be an appropriate tonic to encourage humanity’s maturation.
2 Likes
Accent on “some”. Most Christians would appear to have no problem with the story being allegorical or some such. Let’s not conflate “Christian” with “creationist”.
There may be a problem here with two meanings of the word “science”. It can refer to the body of knoweldge or it may refer to the processes and philosophical standards by which that knowledge is gained. The created, genealogical Adam is certainly compatible with the first, but it’s inimical to the second. Science prefers that you not believe anything without evidence and that you don’t accept unsupported claims in books as evidence. Science and religion can collide both in statements of fact and in epistemology.
So why do these Christians demand a real Adam? What is lost if this pair has ancestors rather than being created out of the [dust of the ground]/[a rib]? What is lost if they are purely an edifying story?
2 Likes