Wikipedia and Adam and Eve

We have already done it.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Where does it say anything about Adam and Eve and setting the record straight there?

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve

Let me remind you. This is what wikipedia says:

There is no physical evidence that Adam and Eve ever literally existed, and their literal existence is incompatible with human evolutionary genetics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve 1

That is just a totally false statement. It misrepresents science and creates a ton of unnecessary conflict. Someone, eventually, needs to get that straight on wikipedia.

This also says nothing of recent developments.


What do you think the right way is to fix that?

I guess I don’t take what you call recent developments as raising to the level needed to interpret the Adam and Eve story as anything more than a story like the Catholic Church has done. A story where, God, curiously uninformed for an omniscient deity, was unable to find the humans when he went for a stroll in the Garden at twilight.

2 Likes

That’s fine. I have not problem with that. However,

The real issue is in correcting that overstatement of what science tells us. Science does not indicate that Adam existed, but is false to say it has determined he did not exist. That is like claiming evolutionary science has determined Buddha did not exist.

Are you sure that’s what the text states?

Parents often ask “Where are you?” even though they know exactly where their child is. I am surprised that that reality would not be evident when reading Genesis 3.

1 Like

Who are making these overstatements? I don’t think it is “science” per se and I don’t think it is ever discussed by scientists. There are certainly no scientific papers or conferences written about it. Science is neutral on the subject. Science doesn’t comment on Atheism, Buddha, Jesus, nor Adam and Eve. Science does a lot a work on human origins and the consensus is that their were many species of humans around for the past million years. How an A&E story fits with that is outside of science.

The way I look at it, is that you are trying to find a place for characters in a story in real human history. That may be important for some Christians to remain faithful and be a worthy purpose for you, its not science nor in the interest of science.

So @patrick, please show me the evidence behind this statement. Show me how evolutionary science is incompatible with their literal existence? If you can’t produce evidence or even reasoning for this, how is that a true statement?

Evolutionary science doesn’t care if they literally existed or not.

1 Like

I entirely agree. So, why are you okay with people saying this?

What not change that to say: human evolutionary genetics does not tell us one way or another about their literal existence.

That would be a truthful statement.

1 Like

Because human evolutionary genetics doesn’t give any credence to any character appearing in any story in any ancient book.

Why is Adam being historical so important? How about every other character in the Bible - Noah, Abraham, Moses, even David and Solomon, and of course Jesus. Their historical existence is even more suspect. Why the personal fascination with Adam?

1 Like

@Patrick,

The point of this two-pontoon scenario is straightforward:

  1. There are Christians who find too much evidence for Evolution for that evidence to be ignored.

AND

  1. There are Christians who find too much Biblical Investment in Adam/Eve for de novo Adam/Eve creation to be ignored. Noah, while being important, is not in as crucial a linking position as Adam.

Once @swamidass realized that science does not have the capacity to say de novo Adam and Eve is impossible, then the door was opened to combining both categories of events into a single scenario.

Like the Roman Catholic Church of nearly 1.5 billion people.

YECs and a few others? How many people are we talking about? More importantly, how many young people under 30 in the US as this is a US Evangelical issue only?

The door was always open. Science never had nor never will have the capability to say anything de novo is impossible. Isn’t the key foundation of Quantum Mechanics is that everything is possible and nothing is impossible?

Right. Like those, and like many people attracted to the BioLogos position.

I really don’t know… but there’s enough of them to have made the current occupant of the White House a real nuisance.

Your comments about the door always being open is completely beside the point. The door to realizing there is a force called gravity was always there as well. Next time I’ll try to clear my figurative terminology with you.

At some point, gravity and @swamidass’ scenarios, become a common place discussion.

1 Like

There are a lot of people who care about this, not just in America. There are may be more Christians in China right now than USA, and most of them are YEC.

That is beside the point. This is really just about being honest.

This been the central reason why most people have rejected evolution, and for example, would not read David Reich’s book. I want to invite them into the fun of understanding origins from all angels, so they can see the beauty there as well.

Also, keep in mind, wikipedia does not say “evolutionary science is incompatible with the literal existence” of King David, Buddha, Joseph Smith, Hitler, Moses, Abraham. If it did, perhaps we would be raising questions about that too. I’d be concerned if said these things against other religious. It works against science to set it up falsely and needlessly against deeply held beliefs.

We have talked about this before. Science is neutral on things like this. I’d agree with you on keeping God out of scientific explanations. It is only fair to refrain from misrepresenting the findings of science so as to create needless conflict with deeply held beliefs of others. I’d have no problem with the statement if it was true, but it is unequivocally false. Without question. Why not correct it?

1 Like

Go ahead, it is okay to make changes.

I know, the VP is a YEC, so is half the cabinet, as well as the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology. I am expecting a big backlash to a more secular government in the new Congress in 2019.

2 Likes

Turns out that they don’t tolerate that from Christians. Ironic.