The Theological Hypothesis of Adam in Science?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Patrick

@Faizal_Ali is an MD and a scientist.

Is he a scientist? I see no indication he is. Though I am happy to be corrected.

No disrespect meant by this MD PhD physician scientist. But physicians are not scientists. Scientists are not physicians. There are very occasionally exceptions to this rule, but only very occasionally (see Joshua Denny).

[Faizal_Ali]

@Patrick

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

Thanks. But to be clear, I am an MD but not a scientist. I just do clinical and educational work.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Patrick

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

@Patrick,

@Faizal_Ali and you make a great pair… you don’t really care what the nuances are … it’s all black and white to you both. Enjoy your single-dimensional world.

[Patrick]

@gbrooks9

Enjoy your single-dimensional world.

Yes, humans with 21st century reasoning, morality, ethics, and values. It is not all black and white to us, but the Bible verses of long ago have no relevance in our times.

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Rumraket

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.

@Rumraket

So if Genealogical Adam is so objectionable to you, maybe you don’t need to be here any more?

Genealogical Adam is a THEOLOGICAL stance taken that does not intrude on Science’s realm.
It is not a SCIENTIFIC position on Theology; most of us here doubt that there can be a scientific position on theology, which is why I.D. is not the same as what PeacefulScience.Org presents.

Genealogical Adam is not for Atheists, nor is it for all Christians. It is for Christians who feel a tension or conflict regarding Romans 5 and the ample evidence there is for Evolution. Scenarios of Genealogical Adam are organized and laid out to show Christians that there is no inherent conflict between de novo creation of Adam and Eve and adhering to the scientific evidence for Evolution, which combined into a God-Guided Evolutionary scenario.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@gbrooks9

So if Genealogical Adam is so objectionable to you, maybe you don’t need to be here any more?

Of course we need him here. We aren’t threatened by disagreement. We’ve taken all comers without a scratch. Let him come.

A better question to ask him @gbrooks9 is “why is he here? What does he hope to accomplish? How does he hope to grow in understanding of others? And how can we grow in understanding of him?”

This is an important difference @gbrooks9. He doesn’t have to agree with us to be welcome. Though, if he isn’t pursuing understanding, I don’t understand why he is here. That should be your focus in how you press him and others.

@gbrooks9

Genealogical Adam is not for Atheists, nor is it for all Christians. It is for Christians who feel a tension or conflict regarding Romans 5 and the ample evidence there is for Evolution.

The science we are putting forward here is solid. It does not require a religious point of view to accept. Even secular scientists endorse it (see @T_aquaticus and more coming).

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@swamidass

Though, if he isn’t pursuing understanding, I don’t understand why he is here. That should be your focus in how you press him and others.

@swamidass ,

I can smell a troll for miles.

@swamidass

The science we are putting forward here is solid. It does not require a religious point of view to accept. Even secular scientists endorse it (see @T_aquaticus and more coming).

I think there’s a lot of room for disagreement on what part of the work is science and what part of the work is science. Most of your Atheist buddies are not inclined to agree with you that “allowing for the de novo creatino of Adam and Eve” is the SCIENCE-y part.

Whereas, if I state right up front that we are taking a theological stance that is consistent with good science, it is usually easier to explain.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@gbrooks9

So if Genealogical Adam is so objectionable to you, maybe you don’t need to be here any more?

I don’t know what to say to this. I can’t question one of the ideas being vented and express what I see wrong with it?

Are we only allowed here if we agree?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Rumraket

I don’t know what to say to this. I can’t question one of the ideas being vented and express what I see wrong with it?

Are we only allowed here if we agree?

@Rumraket

Didn’t you read @swamidass? He loves ya!

I’m not a moderator… so I don’t have to love ya. I get pretty irritated at people who make no effort to understand the work here.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Rumraket

I don’t know what to say to this. I can’t question one of the ideas being vented and express what I see wrong with it?

Sure. You can say what is wrong. But at least be informed about it, and perhaps you are informed. I don’t now.

@Rumraket

Are we only allowed here if we agree?

We like it when people disagree, especially if they can do so constructively.

What exactly is your disagreement with it?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@gbrooks9

Didn’t you read @swamidass? He loves ya!

Saw your post first and responded to it.

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

I get pretty irritated at people who make no effort to understand the work here.

Well, you don’t seem to agree with Dr. Swamidass over whether “Geneological Adam” is a scientific idea. So that leads me to wonder who it is who does not actually understand the work. Though I suppose if you are seeking funding from scientific organizations, you might want keep your mouth shut on what you seem to think it actually is.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Faizal_Ali

I get pretty irritated at people who make no effort to understand the work here.

Well, you don’t seem to agree with Dr. Swamidass over whether “Geneological Adam” is a scientific idea. So that leads me to wonder who it is who does not actually understand the work

This is complex @Faizal_Ali. Part of this is certainly scientific, and published in leading journals. Part of this is certainly theological, and not scientific. No one, however, is arguing that Adam and Eve are a scientific conclusion.

[Faizal_Ali]

@gbrooks9

Scenarios of Genealogical Adam are organized and laid out to show Christians that there is no inherent conflict between de novo creation of Adam and Eve and adhering to the scientific evidence for Evolution,

Really? So you think the existence of human beings who are not related by descent to any other organism that existed on earth prior to their existence is not in conflict with the theory of evolution?

Like, seriously?

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

So you think the existence of human beings who are not related by descent to any other organism that existed on earth prior to their existence is not in conflict with the theory of evolution?

I wish you folks would stop going around on this. What two created human beings are not in conflict with is the data. If God poofed two people into existence and dropped them into a prior, evolved population, there’s no way from the data to tell that it happened. And that’s all @swamidass is claiming. The other point is that, supposing these people had descendants at all, within 4000 years everyone in the world would be descended from them along some lineage or other.

[Faizal_Ali]

Sure. And if God created the universe 6000 years ago, but made it look like it was 14 billion years old, we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference either.

So should we consider that a serious hypothesis, too?

[John_Harshman]

@Faizal_Ali

So should we consider that a serious hypothesis, too?

We shouldn’t even consider Adam and Eve a serious hypothesis, scientifically. That’s not the point. The point is that it can’t be falsified. It’s not science. It’s theology uncontradicted by science. Big difference.

Now as for the YEC hypothesis with intentionally deceptive God, that also can’t be falsified, but it’s theologically problematic, which is one difference between that and the genealogical Adam scenario. Another difference is that no intent to deceive is necessary for GA; it’s undetectable without requiring God to make any effort to cover his tracks.

[Faizal_Ali]

Theologians can excuse God for committing mass genocide. Excusing him for a little prank about the age of the universe should be a doddle for them.

[John_Harshman]

So far I haven’t seen any of them attempt it. At any rate, do you acknowledge that there’s a difference? You seem determined to start fights whenever possible. Why?

[gbrooks9 (George)]

@Faizal_Ali

So should we consider that a serious hypothesis, too?

@Faizal_Ali,

Genealogical Adam scenarios only consider the hypotheses that seriously need considering.

De novo Adam & Eve seriously need considering because Creationists put a high premium on Romans 5.

Evolution is seriously considered because of all the evidence supporting Evolution.

If Romans 5 required a Young Earth as well, things would start to get tangled up. But as it stands, we can allow for miraculous creation of Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, in the midst of an old Earth and an evolved population of humans.