Moved by the bell?
For me, whatever is “immaterial” (non-physical) about our being made in the image of God may also have a “material” entailment, for “fallenness,” for example, to be somehow “heritable.” So, it would seem to me to be a false dichotomy to insist they must be completely separated.
Jesus’ own resurrected body was material, yet also different, somehow.
My two cents!
Wasn’t there another comment out here by you, George @gbrooks9 ? Can’t find it now. 
1 Like
Hi, Guy. It’s not clear to me what you are saying or adding for consideration in this comment. Could you say more? Or say it differently?
Also, if I understand the one example you give here, that would be important to some, but not to me at this point in the conversation… to make sin heritable… so I’d really appreciate not being dragged into a conversation about that right now.
So maybe there are two perspectives here, at least within the Christian community, that seem like a difference in who gets the benefit of the doubt. Let me take a stab at describing them and see what you all think:
- EC would say evolutionary processes get the benefit of the doubt until the point where they become scientifically indefensible. I’m not sure when that would happen, maybe abiogenesis?
- OEC would say evolutionary processes do not get the benefit of the doubt and so special creation is a reasonable (though not required?) assumption until evolutionary mechanisms have been specifically demonstrated.
4 Likes
From what I have read, if there was a bottleneck of 2 in the human population you would need to put them at about 200,000 to 500,000 years before present in order to fit in with the scientific evidence. There is no evidence of a single pair that far back, but it is possible to produce enough genetic diversity over that time period. A single pair 6,000 years ago will definitely run afoul of the scientific evidence. Therefore, it is really difficult to align the literal genealogies in the Bible with the population data. A genealogic pair doesn’t run into this same problem.
4 Likes
I do agree with @swamidass warning that we shouldn’t project our modern understanding of genetics onto the source material. It’s all too easy to project our modern cultural norms onto ancient texts. I am by no means siding with one theologic view over another since I don’t accept any of them, but the contrast between the models is interesting from an outside perspective.
1 Like
It’s interesting that some people want Adam & Eve to be sole-genetic progenitors, and don’t care when (how far back) that was and some people want Adam & Eve to be relatively recent, and don’t care if they were sole-genetic progenitors. I guess it’s the people who want them to be both recent and sole-genetic progenitors that are out of luck? 
6 Likes
That’s the gist of it, at least for those who want to reconcile their christian beliefs with discoveries in science.
2 Likes
That’s the gist of it for those who want to reconcile their specific biblical interpretations with discoveries in science.
4 Likes
It’s not difficult at all to square the genetic evidence with a more “recent” (than 150 kya, e.g.) Adam and Eve, as long as its their geneaological status that’s in view. The Bible doesn’t really try to describe a “physical ancestry only” to humanity, but makes note of times when God goes well beyond such, in order to make us truly human. As for “imposing a modern genetics view” upon the text, that’s what people like Josh are, in fact, arguing against as advocates of a geneaological view. I am merely pointing out that genetics is no surprise to God, and thus not a problem for Scripture, either.
Already answered - a sole progenitor pair of any human species, of any historical date, or of any biological composition is NOT compatible with any scientific data.
We are finding fossils of numerous human species across the globe going back 2 million years. A single pair of human can’t be localized to a single place in the world. The single pair hypothesis fails because of geography not genetics.
@patrick you are going in circles. The GAE resolves these objections perfectly. Or do you mean a “genetic” single pair?
It is the theology that is going around in circles. The science is very clear. There has been many species of humans spread geographical across the world for millions of years.
Ill look around… you know how threads sometimes get racked and stacked … to preserve something (fathomable or not).
1 Like
Silence, in my case, is not to be construed as consent in any way related to any comments made by Patrick. Ever.
3 Likes
And my silence should not be construed as consent in any way related to any comments made by @AJRoberts. Ever.
2 Likes
Well understood already.
@Patrick leave one of the most kind and thoughtful women on this form alone. She is going to get zero leeway on the evidence, but be nice to her for goodness sakes.
1 Like
So you affirm polygenesis? Why then does science reject polygenesis, unlike you?
And so am I. I am not going to put up with personal attacks. @AJRoberts owes me an apology.