The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass

If DI does not prioritize this, on the otherhand, that is not @Agauger’s fault, though it might tell us something about them.

Then there seems to be a very simple solution to this problem: Ann Gauger can get a position at a University or otherwise obtain funding for her research thru non-creationist sources. i.e. Do what every other scientific researcher has to do.

If she is unable to do so, then that probably already tells all we need to know.

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

Adam and Eve, being made in miraculous ways, but in the midst of thousands of humans who were created earlier by means of Evolution, should not be much more trouble to understand than a geneticist who puts up Christmas time stockings!

Yes.

And a “scientist” who spends her limited time and resources trying to prove that Adam and Eve really existed should be treated no more or less seriously than one who tries to demonstrate that reindeer really can fly.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

And a “scientist” who spends her limited time and resources trying to prove that Adam and Eve really existed should be treated no more or less seriously than one who tries to demonstrate that reindeer really can fly.

I think you are overstating our work, @Faizal_Ali.

We arent trying to prove Adam and Eve existed… we are proving that they could have been miraculously created… and science is not in a position to contradict some miracles!

[Faizal_Ali]

So you’re trying to scientifically prove that which cannot be disproven by science.

And you wonder why you can’t get funding?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

So you’re trying to scientifically prove that which cannot be disproven by science.

@Faizal_Ali

Maybe you are confusing @Agauger’s work with @swamidass?

There is no way to scientifically prove de novo creation.

And secondly, we have obtained funding.

[Djordje]

@gbrooks9

And secondly, we have obtained funding.

“And secondly, Joshua did obtain funding.”

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

And secondly, we have obtained funding.

No “we” haven’t. @swamidass gets a minor amount of JTF funding. But he also gets major secular funding to real science at WUSTL.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Djordje

“And secondly, Joshua did obtain funding.”

That is certainly more precise, @Djordje!

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

There is no way to scientifically prove de novo creation.

Sure there is.

If we saw giraffes and whales suddenly popping into existence out of thin air, what would that demonstrate? De novo creation.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

If we saw giraffes and whales suddenly popping into existence out of thin air, what would that demonstrate? De novo creation.

Yes… @Faizal_Ali

But that’s not the kind of de novo creation in question. YECs have elevated Romans 5 to the point where just 2 people need to be miraculously created… not hundreds of giraffes and whales.

When Evolution was first rising up into prevalence in the world, scientists were too quick to say the world was devoid of miracles. And so, the “either/or” mentality became solidified into a complete obstacle.

As I’ve said before, in Western Civilization, Christians working in Science are not particularly taken to task for believing in a miraculous birth of Jesus, or his resurrection. It’s not like these Christians are saying hundreds of men are being born miraculously. And belief in a few miracles like this does not dismiss all the evidence for evolution.

So, adding another 2 “blips” of miracles (de novo creation of Adam & Eve), is really quite parallel.

[Faizal_Ali]

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

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

As I’ve said before, in Western Civilization, Christians working in Science are not particularly taken to task for believing in a miraculous birth of Jesus, or his resurrection.

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.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

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

@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]

@gbrooks9

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.

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?

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

The EVIDENCE tells us that the great majority of life forms came from common descent

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.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

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?

@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]

@gbrooks9

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

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.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Faizal_Ali

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.

@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!

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

Because those are the one’s who seek to dismiss millions of years of evidence that say otherwise.

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.