The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?

Theology
Science
(Faizal Ali) #73

How do you know that just one or two giraffes or whales were not “de novo created”?

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #74

Maybe they should be. If one of them said he thought a blue whale had suddenly popped into existence out of thin air, with no evidence to back it up, he’d probably be roundly ridiculed.

1 Like
(George) #75

@Faizal_Ali

If you are interested in promoting MULTIPLE animals being miraculously created… you are already well beyond what evidence suggests.

The EVIDENCE tells us that the great majority of life forms came from common descent … and primates in particular descend from the great apes branch of the animal kingdom.

Romans 5 requires an Adam and Eve … not giraffes and whales made instantaneously. So you need to pay attention to the context of the Genealogical Adam scenarios.

They are not designed for everyone. They are designed for those Christians who WANT to retain the scientific evidence that they see around them… and wish only to retain a few more miracles.

If you are a nuanced thinker, you can see the distinctions…

(Faizal Ali) #76

There are many Christians who WANT to believe that the universe is only 6000 years old. Why don’t we have a special kind of “science” for them, as well? Isn’t that just fair?

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #77

Oh dear. I don’t want to step out of my place here, me just being a humble MD and not a big important scientist. But the EVIDENCE tells us that ALL life forms came from common descent. Not just 62% or 87% or whatever percentage you seem to believe.

(George) #78

@Faizal_Ali

Because those are the one’s who seek to dismiss millions of years of evidence that say otherwise. Joshua’s approach shows that scientific evidence does NOT need to be overturned… to accept just a few miracles that are virtually “invisible” to the scientific method.

You are an atheist who opposes all religion… so I really don’t care what you think. This site is really not designed for you. It is designed for Christians who want to retain recognition for the evidence of Evolution.

(Faizal Ali) #79

Yes, I would be, wouldn’t I?

Yet, if I suggested that one pair of humans had been, as you say, “miraculously created”, I wouldn’t be? I’m not sure I follow your, er, reasoning.

(George) #80

@Faizal_Ali

Are you normally this cranky?

I don’t believe you will find anything on these pages that asserts that only 62% of life comes from common descent.

In fact, we aren’t even talking about giraffes and whales. We are interested in the evolution of the Great Apes… with one branch making humanity.

In the midst of the evolved humanity, 2 miraculous creations… Adam and Eve… completely undetectable in terms of genetics.

So cool your jets, dear doctor. You don’t seem to grasp the limited and focused nature of the Genealogical Adam scenarios!

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #81

I’m sorry, I seem to have missed the evidence that has been accumulated over those “millions of years” in favour of miraculous creation. Could you cite some of the articles that describe it?

Oh, I see. That evidence is “invisible to science.” Just like the evidence for a Young Earth.

So, please forgive me, but I am still not seeing the difference between the two positions.

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #82

Oh, I grasp it quite well. Your theology does not require a Young Earth, but it does require a literal Adam and Eve. So you will selectively employ the scientific method to support that conclusion. The YEC’s have different theological priorities, so their bastardization of science takes a different form from yours.

But make no mistake that both are bastardizations.

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #83

Sorry to confuse you. I just picked that figure at random, since you only said that a great majority of life arose thru common descent, without placing a specific figure on what you consider a great majority. So it’s not 62%, I gather. Is it greater or lesser than that?

(George) #84

@Faizal_Ali

Thank you, my Atheist doctor.

We preserve science against Young Earth Creationists… and you attack religious faith wherever you find it.

Carry on with your own form of wreckage…

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #85

Thanks, I will.

(Faizal Ali) #86

Personally, I think YEC is a far greater threat to Christianity than it is to science. Yet, despite my antipathy to Christianity and my belief that YEC will hasten its demise, I still argue against YEC every opportunity I get, because it is simply bad science.

Take from that what you will.

1 Like
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #87

Then your arguments here are totally misdirected. We are arguing against YEC too. See here: Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll.

2 Likes
(George) #88

@Faizal_Ali

Then you are misinformed. Creationists are part of the array against climate science… dismissing the value of science at the peril of the whole planet.

There is no greater danger that religion can bring to Earth.

(Faizal Ali) #89

I know you are arguing against YEC, as well as OEC and ID, and doing a good job of it . I give you full credit for that.

It just pains me to see you then change tack and embrace silly pseudoscience when it comes to the aspects of the religion that you believe are essential. It undermines your overall integrity, IMHO.

1 Like
(S. Joshua Swamidass) #90

Thanks.

There is no pseudoscience here. I’m a Medical Doctor and a PhD Scientist, running a research group. I have far too much to lose by putting forward pseudoscience.

1 Like
(Faizal Ali) #91

The point I was trying to make is that, despite my belief that YEC will help fulfill my personal wishes regarding religion, I argue against it because that is what my commitment to science demands of me. I do not see you doing the same thing. You are twisting science to support your religious beliefs.

2 Likes
(Mikkel R.) #93

Yep.

If there’s no good scientific evidence for the Genalogical Adam hypothesis in the first place, then why invent it? What motivates a belief in it? It can’t be a scientifically justified belief when the “hypothesis” is explicitly designed to be unfalsifiable.

If it’s explicitly designed to be unfalsifiable it looks like a textbook example of pseudoscience.

3 Likes