Realism in Science and Scripture

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thanks @dga471.

@dga471

But what if someone, for any reason, wants to maintain a 6,000 BC Adam? Then they would have to posit that somehow, somebody managed to cross the Bass Strait, despite the lack of archaeological and/or anthropological evidence that anyone had the means to do it (again assuming Johnson’s arguments are right).

An alternate solution, discussed in the book (and curiously omitted by Jay), is that they decide “nearly universal” descent is sufficient, and have a good case for why Tasmanians have human worth and dignity regardless. Remember, theology does not speak with scientific precision. With this in mind, there is no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve, if they are real, are ancestors of (nearly) everyone, even if they lived only 6,000 years ago.

Of course, if nearly universal descent is not sufficient, your analysis holds. I’m just not sure “non-realism” is precisely the right term. Let me think about that.

In the end though, your response is strong. In particular:

@dga471

I’ve tried to articulate in this post what seems to me as the hidden assumptions of some TEs such as Jay Johnson and contrast them with the hidden assumptions of other camps, including that of the GAE model. In my opinion, I think this is one of the root reasons why Josh disagrees so much with TEs and refuses to identify with that label. For productive dialogue to happen, these assumptions (on all sides) must be uncovered and discussed. We must be brave and open in confronting the important epistemological decisions: how realist should we take Scripture, and how realist should we take science?

I think this is right.