The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?

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

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?


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

Thanks, I will.

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

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



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.

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


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

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.



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.


This is just totally false. Science does not demand you argue against religion. Most of the early scientists were devoutly religious.

I have claimed no support of my religious beliefs. So this is just obviously false.

Thinking of it like Maxwell’s demon. It is a test case to improve our understanding. You don’t have to believe it is real to see its value.

Except, no. That is not what it is. It is not explicitly designed to be unfalsifiable. It is not implicitly designed this way either. Catch up.

1 Like

You misread me. I said that I argue against YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM because this is what a committment to science demands.

It also demands the rejection of magical creation of organisms from thin air.

1 Like

Okay. I can agree with you there. I did misread you.

Good news too. That is not what the Genealogical Adam is proposing anyways.

Hmm, OK. Please outline the “Geneological Adam” hypothesis, and how you intend to investigate it. I’d also be interested in the reasons you feels this is worth devoting the always scarce resources available for scientific research. Those reasons, of course, would be non-religious, since you insist your religion has nothing to do with it.

1 Like

Read up on my many answers to this question over the last couple years. It might take you till my book is published to go through them. May you can take a look at the book too. It should all be clear from this.

1 Like

I’ll pass. Much more important and interesting science to read about that I’ll probably never get to, even without taking this detour. Thanks, though. Good luck with the book.

1 Like

@gbrooks9 Stop picking on the Atheist here. @Faizal_Ali is an MD. He should be given the respect that has been earned by service to others.

Don’t forget the anti-Vax groups as well as anti-LBGTQ groups and anti-immigrant and anti-equality and …

When any religion group goes against basic human rights, people have a moral responsibility to speak out against it.

1 Like