At a time when people are leaving their faith because they believe it is incompatible with science and when battle lines are being drawn, both within theological circles and between theological and scientific circles, we need people on all sides who are willing to find common ground. I applaud Josh’s work in establishing common ground and particularly in having the courage to potentially put his career at risk to do so. He has shown that we can practice rigor in both science and theology without compromising either one.
Thanks @MichaelL. This has been a big part of my work the last couple years. It is good to see it appreciated by you. My book comes out end of this year, where I will share more of the story on this.
Dr. Swamidass–I’m relatively new to this forum. It would be helpful to me if you would explain what you mean when you say that you “advocate for the empty chair.” The “empty chair” metaphor has myriad meanings, including uses in psychotherapy and grief counseling. I’m not quite following its relation to a discussion of the Genesis story vis a vis evolution. Thanks…
Having glanced at the references you provide (thanks for that), if I follow the “empty chair” metaphor that Dr. Swamidass uses, it means that he is not necessarily advocating for GAE, but rather presenting an analysis that shows that natural selection does not constitute a barrier to GAE, i.e., that the two can co-exist. Am I correct in this understating? Thanks…
GAE is not a scientific hypothesis, it is more a delineation of what science does and does-not say. Evolution has become a barrier to some people for accepting science, and it really should not be.
It is not even genealogy as GAE is based on fictional people who never lived. Genealogy is a science that uses historical facts to determine ancestry. GAE doesn’t do that. It is fake genealogy.
You still don’t get it. The point of GAE’s scientific component is that it’s possible for a couple who lived 6000 years ago to be ancestral to everyone who was alive 2000 years ago. That’s all. The rest is just religion that you’re free to believe or reject, there being no evidence either way.
That’s what it attempts to do, but it does not quite succeed. Science most definitely “says” that adult human beings don’t suddenly spring into existence from dirt.
What GAE does accomplish is provide a scenario in which one can believe in both the Genesis account of human origins and evolution, so long as one believes that there have very specific and discrete miraculous events that contradict known scientific facts. Other forms of creationism require much larger scale denial of science, but it should not be claimed that GAE does not require any science-denial at all. It does.
If you know that your pointless digs are ignorant and wrong that just makes it worse.
Why don’t you just forget about GAE and post something worthwhile instead?
No, I think you got that backwards. Everybody alive 2000 years ago traces ancestry as far back as 6000 years ago, but everybody 6000 years ago need not necessarily have descendants 2000 years ago. In fact, given realistic birth and infant mortality rates alone in those times, it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that most people who spent any time on earth 6000 years ago left no legacy to speak of even a generation down the line, let alone four millennia.
You are correct. Let me rephrase - Everyone alive worldwide 2000 years ago had ancestry from the worldwide population who were alive 6000 years ago. There was nothing special about the Middle East population 6000 years ago and nothing special about the worldwide population 2000 years ago. You can trace the genealogy of everyone alive 2000 years ago to millions of couples who were among the worldwide population 6000 years ago.
