Was the Genealogical Adam and Eve a Crackpot Theory?

Communication
Philosophy

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #1

I’m probably going to regret starting this thread…

I fear the GAE would fail this test. No wonder you all flipped out! I suppose there are always false positives. :wink: I it would be on the low end of the scale, but above zero for sure.


The Status of Cold Fusion
(Matthew Dickau) #2

You can make fusion work at room temperature… you just have to catalyze it with muons, which take too much energy to make at present to break even. :smiley: Pretty sure that’s not what the above is about, though.

Why would Genealogical Adam fail the crackpot test here? Depending on how minimal you go with it, it only makes one or two claims widely regarded to be false, giving it a score around -4 or -3.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #3

This one times about 3.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

Some of these points are regularly accused of this, though of course I dispute it.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

The de novo creation of Adam…

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

@gbrooks9 jumps the score by at least 50 here:

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

I do think this is a paradigm shift for the interaction between theology and science.

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.

I’m accused of this all the time too.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

A subset of people who oppose the GAE are committed to polygenesis, and GAE rejects polygenesis.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

The de novo creation of Adam and Eve is untestable.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

I lost count precisely, but we are up to about 250 or so. Perhaps this should give me some empathy for my friends at BioLogos, such as @pevaquark. I suppose that sometimes the crackpots just end up being right. What do we do about that problem?


(Guy Coe) #4

Being in the company of crackpots like Einstein, Tesla, Pauling, Pasteur, Descartes, etc. is not such a bad thing. :o)


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #5

@Guy_Coe, you are increasing the score:

5 points for each mention of “Einstien”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.


(Guy Coe) #6

It is the genetic Adam and Eve theory which is crackpot. And you already know how I argue with the special creation bit about Adam and Eve. :o)


The Status of Cold Fusion
(Brad Cooper) #7

That index is designed for physics theories, which are usually based on very solid grounding via math and/or experiments.

I think the index would have to be adjusted quite a bit for theories in biology and genetics, definitely adjusted for anthropology, and put through a complete re-write for theology.

Otherwise every theory of theology would be crackpot. :slight_smile:

We are all “fools for Christ.”

1 Corinthians 4:10:

“We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.” (KJV).

"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness.” (1 Corinthians 3:19)

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21)


#8

It certainly would. And would taint its originator forever.


#9

And this is a good thing? Oy vey


(Guy Coe) #10

Actually, yes. Just as Jesus was willing to endure ridicule, censure, persecution, and even death for the claims he made, so we are called to the same --when it occurs --for standing up for his message and claims, vidicated as they are by his resurrection. The evidence for the resurrection is compelling, but it is hardly self-serving to believe it and what it entails. Oy vey, indeed!


#11

No need to worry, the atheists aren’t coming for you. :sunglasses:


(Guy Coe) #12

What do you get when you cross a “Jehovah’s Witness” with a nihilist?

Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason. ;o)


#13

I tell this joke as

What do you get when a Jehovah Witness marries an Atheist?

Children who go around ringing doorbells for no reason at all.


(Guy Coe) #14

One of my favorite comedians has this thing in his routine where he says “Do you suppose, that after a long day of door to door visitation, when a Jehovah’s Witness finally comes home in the evening, sits down and puts their feet up, and just as they’re settling in comfortably, they hear a persistent knock at their door, that they get a little miffed?” ;o)


(Brad Cooper) #15

Would rather be a fool for Christ, than just a fool.

:slight_smile:


#16

How about not being a fool at all? :rofl: You can do it if you try. :rofl: