From memory, so it might need to be corrected, but IRC the hypothesis is that the population of humans could all be the genealogical descendants of a couple that lived between 6kya and ##kya (Can’t remember that number, is it 10?). In fact, the population of humans at 1 CE could have all been the genealogical descendants of a couple that lived 6+ kya.
The hypothesis never claims “that those two people were named Adam and Eve, were created directly by God, and lived in a special garden until thrown out later.”
The book, which I haven’t read yet (it’s on my list!), talks about Adam and Eve, not because the hypothesis claims they existed, but because the hypothesis provides space for the possibility that they existed. And that’s important because it’s not obvious or intuitive that this would be the case. In the past we’ve thought that the science showed the opposite, in fact.
Here’s where I’m really stepping out on a limb, being a non-expert. It looks to me like that one could attempt to falsify the hypothesis (that ancestors of us all could have lived 6kya). But there is no need to falsify that Adam and Eve existed, because the book doesn’t claim that.
That’s my non-expert understanding. Alrighty then, I’m ready to be roasted. Commence the roasting!
The names aren’t really part of it, but the other parts are. It’s an attempt to reconcile Genesis with science. Genesis says Adam and Eve are created directly by God, and the main version of GAE (there are others) postulates that. Another version, less acceptable to YECs, just has them chosen from the population. But that’s not the version being pushed. And the garden is similar. Why do you think there’s all this talk about “people outside the garden”? If the GAE were simply “some people living 6000 years ago could be ancestral to everyone alive 2000 years ago”, that wouldn’t be of much value to the biblical literalists who are the target audience.
I understand all that. I know the biblical discussion better than the scientific one. I don’t know whether Adam and Eve were actual people newly created, people picked from a population for a purpose, or if they are a literary tool to talk about humanity as a whole. I don’t have a dog in that fight.
Like I said, I haven’t read the book, but from interviews, the video reviews and excerpts I believe that GAE just says that the science doesn’t rule de novo creation out. I think saying “it makes room for de novo creation” is different from postulating de novo. There’s a difference between conducting a thought experiment and making a hypothesis. It seems that GAE does both. My comment is just distinguishing which is which rather than lumping them together.
It looks like I’m about to contribute to us going in circles. I obviously respect your science chops more than mine (since I have none). But this discussion seems to be a case of just accurately representing the thrust of the book.
The degree of misunderstanding here is just very high.
Of course de novo creation of AE can be falsified, or we would not say that Jeanson’s model of AE is in conflict with the evidence. Every model has components that are unfalsifiable.
That is correct and you are not clever here. I directly state this in the book, and @jongarvey also has written about this.
It’s only superfluous if you don’t have regard for Genesis.
I’m not sure we disagree. There are several claims made. Some are directly testable, and some are not. I’m clear that the hypothesis as a whole extends beyond science and can’t be called pseudo science because it doesn’t purport to be science.
Treating the GAE as one unified claim is a mistake because it makes it impossible to clarify these distinctions.
For example, de novo creation writ large is impossible to falsify because it is not well specified. However Jeanson’s model of de novo creation certainly is falsified, which demonstrates directly that it is falsifiable.
The distinction between positive evidence and absence of negative evidence is also important.
Can a model include ramifications of the hard science? Seems like the book is open about that it’s both doing hard science and proposing what the science could mean for biblical intepretation. Is that not allowed?
Apologies for jumping in to a discussion where you’re getting answers from the actual author, LOL. Can’t help myself from jumping into the fray, I guess.
They specified their model with enough clarity that we can say with confidence it is conflict with the genetic evidence. Of course, it is in conflict with quite a bit more, but we can scope it there for now. I’d start by pointing out that it requires/predicts mutation rates orders of magnitude greater than what we observe.
Just stop with that. I’m not obligated to use your private definition of “consistent”. By your argument all scientific models are unscientific.
Unscientific is the wrong term. Try “extend beyond science”. We can agree that components of the theory are not science, but they are coherent with and informed by science. In that limited sense they are scientific, but they do extend beyond science.
I was referring to GAE models of AE, not Jeanson’s. How do you falsify them?
I was referring to only GAE models, not purely scientific models. I don’t know of any scientific models which employ unfalsifiable components. Care to name any?
I am also wondering how the de novo creation of two people is consistent with science?
So the de novo creation of AE under GAE is not unscientific?
So how is de novo synthesis of AE “coherent with and informed by science”?
I don’t have any issues with GAE. Its a great idea, but it has parts not consistent with what we know from current science like de novo creation of AE.
Please present evidence the conflicts with the GAE. IF you can’t, then you shouldn’t claim it is consistent with science.
Most scientific theories rely on math. 1+1=2. That is unfalsifiable, as are several assumptions in any given mathematical system. Some are axioms that are asserted and cannot be falsified. Others are just true statements that do not have any valid evidence against them.
Unless you intend to argue that scientific theories that rely mathematical claims are unscientific (absurd, don’t do that), it should be clear that all theories rely on components that are unfalsifiable.
I could only falsify the GAE if there was evidence that it is false, but there isn’t. I certainly tried to falsify it, but I could not.
I could just as easily ask you to show me how you would falsify evolution. You can’t, because we do not have strong evidence against it. That doesn’t make evolution unscientific, does it?
You should consider if you are offside in casting this in a rather harsh manner.
There are claims which are made that are inconsistent with science. These are claims for which evidence does exist, and is clearly contrary.
Claims which are not inconsistent with science are by double negative consistent with science. These are only deceptive if overstated or presented without qualification. In casual usage, I think it quite reasonable to state that GAE is consistent with science. GAE is based on a theological perspective, of interest within a community for which the reconciliation of science and faith is of significance. Nobody is suggesting that science leads to GAE; only that the idea is, well, consistent with science.
That may be a logical parallel, but I do not think it fair because it strips away the context. Many people of faith do try to resolve dissonance between a literal A&E and science, and GAE offers one such path. There is no such reasonable context for physicians discussing a differential diagnosis based on zero information. They may, however, indulge in blue sky thinking for a presentation of a complaint of “it hurts here”, but diagnostics reveal nothing. All sorts of conditions may be considered as “consistent”, but not particularly supported. That is surely not deceptive.
I have never argued GAE is in conflict with any scientific evidence, stop strawmanning me. I am only saying that parts of it are not supported by science. There is nothing consistent about a miraculous de novo creation of Adam and Eve with science.
1+1 = 2
1+1 = 4
Which of the above calculations is wrong and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion?
Scientists use maths to make predictive models. They isolate the major variables involved in a given system and try to relate them in a logical way using mathematics. The components of these mathematical models are observed parts of that system. For example, the Michaelis-Menten (MM) mathematical model of enzyme kinetics incorporates initial velocity, maximal velocity, substrate concentration and a Michealis constant to predict the kinetic properties of single-substrate enzymes: all these parts aren’t imagined, but are derived from looking at simple enzyme systems.
In addition, the assumptions made by the MM model are falsifiable (because we can check to see if they hold) and invalidate the model when violated. For example, the MM model assumes that after an enzyme-catalyzed reaction kicks off, the concentration of one of the intermediates will approach a steady-state because it is consumed and produced at nearly equal rates. This is an assumption that can be checked quite easily and falsified for a given experimental system.
We don’t find any of these things in mathematical models of science. Provide examples to the contrary if I am wrong. I am willing to change my mind.
No. Scientific models employ maths to connect essential variables in a system for the purpose of predicting the behavior of that system. This makes mathematical claims in science testable, since they are used to explain aspects of reality.
I am not asking you to falsify GAE. I am asking you falsify one of its components/assumptions, the de novo creation of AE.
This is a faulty comparison. Evolution can be falsified, there is no doubt about that and its what makes it science, but how can you falsify the miraculous de novo creation of AE thousands of years ago in GAE models?
They specified their model with enough clarity that we can say with confidence it is conflict with the genetic evidence. Of course, it is in conflict with quite a bit more, but we can scope it there for now. I’d start by pointing out that it requires/predicts mutation rates nearly 2order of magnitude greater than obsered.
My claim is that de novo creation of Adam and Eve can be consistent with science, and I’ve demonstrated this with evidence. You are free to disagree. Simply asserting your disagreement is not adding any new information to the conversation.
Just let it go.
@Michael_Okoko I’ve made my point. You disagree, and I’m fine with that. This conversation has run its course. Thanks for participating.
We use deductive logic based on certain axioms, which are not “falsifiable” in the way that scientific statements are. I think you completely miss Josh’s point. Science can use mathematical models which can then be proven or disproven with regards to whether these models actually apply to reality, but the mathematical reasoning in the models cannot be empirically tested. One cannot prove or disprove 1+1 = 2 using empirical science.
In principle, the de novo creation of AE is indeed falsifiable, as many miracles are. One could, for example, have had a camera set up in the Garden of Eden to record the creation of Adam and Eve. One could also ask them in person if they were created anew or born and cross-check their statements with their family members and neighbors. Note that this would be verification by testimony, not the scientific method in the regular sense, since the hypothesis is that a one-off miracle made possible by God happened, not that the laws of nature can instantly produce humans de novo.
Unfortunately cameras didn’t exist back then, and A&E and their relatives are long since gone. So such a statement is practically unfalsifiable today, except for those (mostly Christians) who think of the Genesis narrative as containing historical information to testify to their existence. But the impracticality of falsification does not necessarily mean that a certain hypothesis is then “inconsistent with science”. For example, the hypothesis “I ate scrambled eggs on the morning of August 1, 1998” is practically unfalsifiable too, because I nor any of my parents remember what I ate and there is no existing record. Yet it obviously seems odd to say that the hypothesis is “inconsistent with science”.
You have demonstrated no such thing. There is just nothing in chemistry, physics or biology that supports such a process.
It is you who is simply asserting the claim that a de novo creation of AE is consistent with science. I have been asking for the said explanation, but you have dodged answering every time.
I believe I am making an important point here. Certain parts of GAE are consistent with science like the mixing of two separate lineages, while others like the de novo creation of AE are not. Its that simple and if you claim otherwise, I am waiting for you to demonstrate the consistency of the creation miracle with science. Thanks for participating as well.
Well of course you can’t, because you can’t prove anything using empirical science. You can, however, gather enough data to make it vanishingly unlikely that 1+1≠2. I just gathered some data myself: I put one sheet of paper and one sheet of paper together and then counted them; yep, there were two. Another data point favoring the hypothesis.
There’s a difference between “falsifiable in principle” and “falsifiable if we had been around in the distant past”, and I think you have abused that difference. While there is no good evidence of what you had for breakfast many years ago, scrambled eggs are not considered impossible, and in fact similar events are often observed. De novo, ex nihilo creation of organisms, however, has never been observed and would seem to contradict what we know of biology. So yes, that’s inconsistent with science.
You don’t need any axioms or deductive logic here. You can literally count with your fingers or count other discrete objects to show why 1 + 1 does not equal four. John and Sarah gave me an apple each, how many apples do I have? Its obviously two and never four. That’s your falsifiability right there.
If you disagree, please show how you can use deductive logic alone to show that 1+1 does not equal 4.
Yeah, but I can do that calculation using real life objects (chairs, boxes, cells, etc.) so many times that it always gives 2, thus, making anyone who argues for a different answer appear foolish and out of this world.
Good. Not only is AE creation in GAE models unfalsifiable, it is equally not consistent with science because nothing in our current scientific understanding of the world supports de novo creation of two human beings.
This is true, but in the case of the de novo creation of AE according to GAE there is nothing consistent with it and modern science. Jesus creating AE de novo, Jesus walking on liquid water, Jesus restoring a blind man’s sight with baked mud, are all inconsistent with modern science.
Yes I can’t falsify that claim (except if there was some register somewhere that documented exactly what you ate on that day), but there is nothing inconsistent with science about cooking or eating scrambled egg, because both processes are in line with what we would expect if our scientific understanding of the world held. If you told me you lifted a Boeing airplane in 1998 using your pinky finger, I might not be able to falsify your claim, but I certainly won’t take you seriously because lifting planes with pinky fingers is wildly inconsistent with modern science.
Sure—we are usually referring to a set of parsimonious presuppositions concerning some foundational logic and, as pointed out with mathematics, the axiomatization of that logic in symbolic form. This is explicitly accounted for under Popper.
The axiom cannot be disconfirmed, but any real-world correlate–where each component is represented–may be falsified against the axiom. Unless we are arguing that a new axiom be incorporated into our presuppositions for science, I don’t think the example moves us toward an understanding of the question being asked.
How would you describe a similar situation in an academic paper where falsification was not possible and therefore the hypothesis could not be tested?
Yeah. Mathematical axioms cannot be falsified, but they can still be tested, but that’s pointless since they would still hold true regardless. Consider the mathematical axiom below:
The above is true (under specific conditions) whether we plug in real numbers or not, but we can only know when we actually do the checking.