Geneticists comparing the DNA of different people have shown how widely divergent their DNA is in terms of the mutations it exhibits. These mutations are why we differ in skin color, size, facial contours, etc., etc. Mutations in human beings occur at a very slow rate. In order for the present, divergent mutations to develop, it’s estimated that more than 500,000 years would be required if the human race began with a solitary couple.
(2) Men before Adam. In 1655 a maverick theologian named Isaac de LaPèyrere argued in his book Prae-Adamitae that Adam and Eve were historical persons who were part of a wider human population. God specially selected them to be in relation to Him to fulfill His salvific purposes. Today this view is receiving new attention. So long as there were other people about to interbreed with Adam and Eve’s descendants, there is no problem is holding that everyone alive today (or even at the time of Christ) is descended from an original pair. These two could be located anywhere in the human lineage prior to several thousand years ago. Since our DNA is the product, not only of their DNA, but also of all the other people with whom their descendants interbred, the genetic divergence observed today is no problem. This view is consistent with the archaeological and genetic evidence, but is it really the natural reading of the biblical text?
I hope that he can adjust his language here to recognize that that universal genealogical ancestry is precisely the opposite of LaPèyrere’s polygenesis.
Yes, that is definitely an entrenched conceptual error when it comes to evaluating a sequential reading of the early chapters of the Genesis narrative. They’re trying hard not to let an ugly old error back in the door, not recognizing that monogenism is the result, not polygenism.
I am currently exploring the genetic evidence that is said to rule out an original pair of modern humans. In talking with genetic scientists, I’ve found that there is enormous confusion about this question today. Popularizers have misrepresented the arguments, thereby inviting misguided responses. The issues are very technical and difficult to understand. I’m just beginning to get my feet wet and don’t want to misrepresent the science. I want to know how firm the evidence is and what it would cost intellectually to maintain the traditional view. For example, one scientist estimates that for the entire human race to have originated from an isolated pair 100,000 years ago, the mutation rate would have to be five times what it is observed today. Is that too outlandish to affirm?
He is right about the popularizers too.
1 Like
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
5
B theory of time (which I think is right) objections to the kalam are lousy I think. The kalam can be run assuming the truth of B-theory. Work has been done in that area. I think the Kalam fails but not for that reason. Check outv Morriston, Draper, and Oppy
Having fun with Dr. Craig. He is really intently interested and engaged with getting the details of genetics straight. I wish every leader outside science approached it with as much diligence as he. This going to be an interesting year with him.
We’ve been talking about David’s Reich’s work a great deal here, and I suggested his book as recommended reading for everyone.
You guys look like cousins. Both should have DNA sequenced and compared. I see a little Denisovan Adam in both of you. Perhaps a Neanderthal Adam in both of you, too. Both have tremendously evolved brains.
Craig looks good for 68. I have always liked Craig. He puts up a good defense of God but always makes layman’s mistakes on the science and then gets creamed on the science by the likes of Sean Carroll, Larry Krause, and other scientists. He really does want to understand the science. He is not afraid of it. You can really help him with the genetic science and technology as he is willing to move his theology to fit closely with the science.
Carroll, yes. Krauss, no. Krauss embarrassed himself. WLC always does his research. He defends theistic evolution in his defenders class. Though I don’t think he adopts it. I think he accepts common ancestry. Though sometimes he says things that makes me doubt that.
FFRF has talked to W.L. Craig on many occasions. Co-President Dan Barker has debated him. I think Craig learned something about secular humanism from Barker and possible a little about the real meaning of the 1st amendment establishment clause.
Love to meet Emily. Tell us a little more about her.
WLC accepts and is intrigued with new scientific discoveries. I never seen him as anti-science or pro pseudo-science. He rolls his eyes whenever Ken Ham’s names comes up and he is certainly no a YEC. If there is such a thing as a deist today, WLC would be the closest to being one.
2 Likes
swamidass
(S. Joshua Swamidass)
Split this topic
16
I watched some. BUT hje started attacking creationists as cranks and using incorrect facts about our positions. Then he says christians should reject YEC. That means Cristians should reject genesis as the truth from Gods claim that its the truth.
He doesn’t understand that accuracy in origins is not based on modern men speculations about the far off past. you have to figure things out. In origin subjects this more difficult and requires more intelligence then is used for science subjects already settled and just memorized by kids in thier late teens and early twenties.
I found him not aware of his opponents ideas and he was not impressive to me. They could do better.
i always find YEC speakers, who are used to speaking, as impressive.
