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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.