Posted on 11/29/2011 12:32:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
For the last several months there has been a flurry of discussion—mostly online, of course—about the impossibility of a literal Adam & Eve (see, e.g., here and here and here). This ruling-out has been accomplished recently by the Human Genome Project, which indicates that anatomically modern humans emerged from primate ancestors about 100,000 years ago, from a population of something like 10,000. In short, science has confirmed what many of us already knew: there was not a literal first couple. So what else can we learn from this story?
Plenty, it turns out. Peter Enns, a biblical scholar who blogs at Patheos, has been following the discussion with some care. Lately he has done us all a great favor: written a series of posts pointing out recurring mistakes made by many of those doing the discussing. Many of these mistakes are rhetorically effective but collapse upon even modest inspection.
But not all of them.
On Friday, he listed one held mostly by the pro-science crowd: “Evidence for and against evolution is open to all and can be assessed by anyone.”
Enns declares that this is not so. “The years of training and experience required of those who work in fields that touch on evolution rules out of bounds the views of those who lack such training,” he writes.
This is true but it misses the point. The open-access-to-science cliché, usually trundled out by those who wish to contrast the transparency of science with the supposed obfuscation of religion, carries some truth.
Science actually is transparent in a way that religion is not. That’s because, in science land, there is nothing but to follow the evidence. It’s out on the table, after all, able and willing to be poked and prodded and analyzed and figured out and held up and turned around and looked at from new angles. Also, what counts as evidence in science is pretty well-defined. And if you do become an evolution expert, you actually will see that 99% of all scientists back evolution for a reason: the evidence demands it.
This is the great generosity of science, and its great strength: It is actually all right there, ready to be seen and understood. It is relievedly explicit. It takes effort, sure, just as Enns suggests; it’s not easy to become a professional research biologist. But the reason biologists agree on evolution is because it’s a relatively simple matter to be objective about fossils and genes. Unlike the objects of religion—the divine and humanity’s relation to it—the objects of science give themselves up for abstraction and analysis without a fight.
Therefore Richard Dawkins (for example) is right when he says, as he has on many occasions, that the evidence for evolution is there to be inspected by anyone. It is sitting out there on the table, waiting patiently for most of humanity to catch up to it, waiting to tell us it’s time to bid the historical Adam & Eve a final, if fond, farewell.
I totally agree with you, dear tacticalogic, that "life was created with the ability to evolve." So I certainly was not trying to construct an "either/or paradigm" separating life and its progressive development.
I do note that you said life was "created." Hold that thought for now.
Putting it crudely, when life stops, we die — for all that we may have been built — physically constructed — out of matter, chemicals, and the natural laws (where did they come from?).
Among other things, Life seems to have a very strange knack for putting maximal distance between itself and the effects of the inexorable law of entropy....
Whether life is created or uncreated, it seems to have certain properties that make it radically different from inorganic, material systems in nature — the sort of things that Newtonian (classical) physics explains so well.
For one thing, life demonstrates on-going, continuous process — "evolution" if you will. It is not a static entity — if it stood still too long, it would simply be engulfed in the fate of every other non-living. mechanical system in nature: It would quickly or eventually "dissipate" under the law of entropy....
Most helpfully the late, great mathematician Robert Rosen provided a basic classification of systems in nature, living and non-living.
Inorganic — i.e., non-living, material, i.e. "mechanical" systems — are closed systems, or "simple" systems. Living organisms, however, are open systems — "complex" systems.
Oddly, ironically, it seems that the causally closed systems in nature are the ones that have no "defense" against the full effects of thermodynamic equilibrium by the shortest route possible. While the causally open systems can at least hold these effects at bay — for a time or a life time. This tells me that causally open systems probably have access to more information than causally closed ones.
Go figure!!! Where does this "information" come from?
Of course, information theory is not a strong suit for the Darwinian account of "biology." Biological information is not oozed out of primaeval rocks or "energized" tide pools.... Yet if something leaves no historical trace, it cannot be accounted for by Darwin's theory.
And yet how can an organism of such virtually infinite complexity as even one single tiny cell account for the obviously-needed organizational principle which causes all the parts of its organism to cohere, from instant to instant, so that it can even be the particular cell it is, in process over space and time?
Where Rosen gets controversial is where he argues that classical — Newtonian — physics is not the "most general" science, on the grounds that closed systems in nature are relative rarities. The "general case" in nature is the existence and proliferation of "open," complex systems — that is, the living systems.
This is just another way of getting to the point I've been hearing from many different directions by now, from physics, mathematics, and philosophy: The Universe is one single unified and organized living system. Cosmos expresses Order. Life is both generic and necessary.
In short, biology rules, and physics is its handmaiden and not the other way around.
I have more questions than answers. Thanks for all your help in working the problems through, dear tacticalogic!
So.......creationism does not deal with the creation of the universe? Is this how you define creationism? You have chosen, to serve yourself, a demarcation argument, but one which requires redefining of words. I am afraid that creationism is better defined as a belief which accounts for the appearance and existence of all matter, energy, and time. It is not limited to a tiny slice of postabiogenesis biological concepts which you want to limit the conversation to. For your viewing there are three basic views of creation. They are creatio ex deo, creatio ex materia, and creatio ex nihlo. Now, YOU are the one who said repeatedly creationism is useless. Now that you know what it is, will you please explain why you say this....and please, just the scientific explication.
Allmendream....I have nothing to say about rats and mice....other than I try to keep them out of my barns. I am not a ratologist or a mousologist. I am a killer of rats and mice.
Maybe I've misread, then. While apparently agreeing that life has the ability to evolve, you seem hostile to the theory that it has.
In short, biology rules, and physics is its handmaiden and not the other way around.
The organizing principle of the universe is, therefore, outside of the universe. It must be greater than the constituent parts whether biology or physics.
I would argue that Spirit is the greater set, and that the cosmos is a subset. I would also argue that the organizing principle cannot be less than any of or the some of any of the parts. For example, there must be an information giver to account for the existence of complex information.
This gets us back to Eden and the existence of the original human. Must that human species necessarily have been brought to this realm fully formed given its incredible complexity? I would argue "yes".
All of that means it is logical to suggest that a "mind" as complex as that would decide to go its own way out of some stubbornness or narcissism.
It would explain the necessity of "surrendering" to the Information Giver, so that a human being could be both remade and free, and would make the Information Giver free of any charge of Injustice.
What Hawkins does not consider is that man consists of body and soul, both physical and spiritual. The physical can evolve but the spiritual can not. Creation in the likeness of God means receiving an immortal soul. The ability to discern right from wrong has not evolved biologically from monkeys or rocks.
It is a common definition, the second one given. I didn’t think we were discussing the creation of the human soul so the first definition is inapplicable. creationism [kriËˈeɪʃəˌnɪzÉ™m] n 1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the belief that God brings individual human souls into existence at conception or birth Compare traducianism 2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) the doctrine that ascribes the origins of all things to God’s acts of creation rather than to evolution creationist n creationistic adj One cannot prove a negative. One can only supply positive evidence. I say creationism is useless based upon my own knowledge of history and science. Where is the contradictory evidence? What use has creationism ever been in terms of discovery application and prediction? Absent ANY evidence that Creationism has EVER been of ANY use in these terms - I stand behind my contention that Creationism is useless. Where is the evidence that Creationism is of use in discovery and application? Your inability to even give an opinion on if the differences between a mouse and a rat are “micro” or “macro” is all too typical of creationists. I somehow must define things accurately right back to the origins of the universe while you cannot even be troubled to be pinned down on what exactly “micro” or “macro” evolution would be, how they would be different, or if a rat and mouse would be an example of one or the other. So typical. So funny!
I agree with you. I pointed this out to you several posts back....it is your opinion. It is not methodologial science which differentiates your opinion. It is your worldview and philosophy which compels your thought. Will you not allow others the same? Can you leave the invective out of the conversation?
It is an informed opinion based upon a wealth of evidence without a single contradictory point of evidence.
Creationism is useless.
Absent any contradictory information I stand behind this formulation.
Creationism is of no use.
Your inability to name any practical use speaks volumes.
As does your inability to even give an opinion about if the differences between a mouse and a rat is a “micro” evolutionary difference or a “macro” evolutionary difference.
Science is of use in determining such answers.
Creationism is obviously of no use to you in making such a determination.
LOL! Is this satire?
Hey allmendream....
Before I address your post, there’s something here far more important that I want to address with you. I found this in your post #167:
****But I do think miracles are necessary to explain miraculous events - like the virgin birth of my Lord Jesus the Christ.****
Needless to say I was shocked beyond belief. You are claiming Jesus Christ as your Lord?
In Mark 10:6 Jesus is setting the Pharisees straight on divorce and He says this:
6 “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”
It seems to me that with your ardent position on evolution you’re calling Jesus a liar. If you’ve got a way of squaring that circle I’d love to hear it.
I’ve got to call you out on a few other things. Throughout this thread and others that I’ve been on you are insulting and demeaning to believers in Christ.
In Matthew 5:22 Jesus says this:
22 “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
In Paul’s writings he clearly (over and over) appeals for comity within the Body of Christ. What you are doing is poisonous.
I am asking you to repent and put aside the insults and demeaning comments in future posts (not for my good allmendream... for yours).
If you don’t feel the need to do that I am asking you to stop publicly claiming Jesus as your Lord. You are a horrible witness to an already hostile and unbelieving world.
amd is hardly the only evo who takes this position, that of ridiculing Christians for ignorance and superstition for their position on evolution and yet accepting without question things like the virgin birth and other miraculous events, such as people rising from the dead, apparitions, visions, transubstantitation, etc.
It’s a matter of wanting their cake and eating it.
It’s inconceivable that one can call themselves a Christian and call God a liar at the same time, but it happens.
“Would the difference between a mouse and a rat be a “micro” or a “macro” change?”
You answered.....
“Micro”
This is quite interesting to me because there are ten times as much differences in genetic DNA between a mouse and a rat than between a human and a chimpanzee.
So you are saying that a ten times greater change over a few thousand years is perfectly reasonable and is a “micro” change - while a change that is one tenth as great is a “macro” change and not at all possible even after six to seven million years!?!?!?
You believe in speciation and evolutionary change in a genome at thousands of times the rate proposed by evolutionary biology - and yet claim to reject evolution through natural selection of genetic variation?!?!?!?
Does this seem like a disconnect to you?
How do you reconcile this huge discrepancy?
According to our Geocentric FReepers ‘all Bible believing Christians are Geocentrists’ so I guess according to that view you are picking and choosing as well - calling yourself a Christian while calling God a liar.
I will try to address your assertion. What I am sure of is that my feeble attempt to answer your assertion will be met with derision and rejection on your part. Nevertheless, I will give it a good ole college try. I will use the proper definition of creationism.
As I tried to explain in my post #297 the answer lies not in just effect but also motive and philosophical application to life. As I stated, there is an essential equivalency of the view of decent and design. Both are historical 'science' and therefore are not provable by direct inspection nor by scientific methodology. Strictly speaking, common decent is an abductive or historical inference. By definition, abductive inferences attempt to establish past causes by viewing present effects. Hence it is more accurate to refer to common decent as a theory rather than a fact, i.e. what in fact happened in the past? The accurracy of such theories and the underlying inferences can be used efficaciously to undermine those theories. Establishing the past with certainty, even to a reasonable certitude can be wrought with difficulties. Neither homologies, biogeographical distribution, embryological similarity, nor the presence of rudimentary organs establish common decent beyond reasonable doubt. Even the seemingly invincible molecular homologies are dependent upon an a priori certainty that similarity cannot be the result of design. That magesterial science 'chooses' to exclude the metaphysical reality of one view (design) to the predelection of another metaphysical view (decent) seems arbitrary.
I will not go to the trouble of chronicaling what has already been explained regarding the metaphysical nature of both. Whether you and I accept one view as metaphysical and another as otherwise, even the great Stephen J. Gould affirmed the metaphysical reality of the theory of decent.
So, that said, what is useless and what is useful? When my wife is boiling a pot of water and I ask her what she is doing, she might say, "I am applying energy to water, the molecules of water are beginning to move at a greater and greater speed until the liquid becomes a vapor,...or she might say, "I am heating some water to make a cup of tea." Both answers would be correct. But the usefulness of the answers might be meaningful to differnet people in different circumstances. I am inclined to say, in answer to your assertion about the usefulness of creationism is that God is in the details. By that I mean, there are many lines of scientific study and evidence which points to a point in the past when time, space, matter, and energy did not exist. (I am sure you are aware of those studies). All point to a moment when the universe seemingly exploded into existence, out of nothing. Prior to that point we ask what was the cause of the universe? Like decent we approach this question abductively, not by direct observation. By induction we can make reasonable conclusions about the nature of that cause, those being that the agent would be timeless, incomprehensively powerful, unimaginably intelligent to set the whole universe into being and motion, and personal due to the fact that a decision must have been made by that agent. If people who believe, as George Smoote, the project manager for COBE, and athiest, said, "It is as if we have seen the fingerprints of God", then those people, not you, but those people, who seek the truth find it supremely useful to know that the universe was created and that there is a Creator. The dedifferentiation of decent and its method of verification from design and its subsequent scientific application is arbitrary and capricious and without methodological proof and observability.
There are those people who find use in knowing and understanding the truth. There are those people who find seeking the understand the truth as useful. There are those who see beyond the physicalist, those who see nature of life as dualism, and have good reason to believe just that, who begin with the Creator because they have stuied creationism and their unvarnished pursuit of truth takes them to that Agent of Creation. These people find creationism of value simply because all of science, Christian theism, Judaic Theism affirm, logically that it is truth. There are those who say the truth is useless, but again, that is one man's opinion. In fact, for the physicalist, naturalist, Darwinist, atheist, truth cannot exist, as cannot logic, reason, or rational thought. That may explain the unequivocal assertion that creationism is useless. Decent or design allows similar scientific application of modern molecular biology. You have chosen your poison, so to speak. I will never convince you of any usefulness of creationism, of that I am sure. But you exclude yourself from essentially the whole of science who affirm the universe came to be in a rather large explosion out of nothing. That moment of creation has become mainstream doctrine. That is why I asked you the question which I did. Rather than simply answering the question you chose to redefine terms.
I will stop the discussion, as it is clear to me that, while I do not find creationism as useless, I find trying to convince you otherwise is useless. Good luck to you. Perhaps we can have another discussion at another time.
Not seeing any examples of practical application or discovery or knowledge gleaned from presupposing supernatural causation for physical phenomena there.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
Have a great day!
What’s the pope got to do with anything?
Why is his opinion important to me or any other Christ follower?
He’s the head of the Catholic church, not any other, nor the true church that Jesus is building.
Can Catholics be saved?
Sure, just like there are some saved people in any denomination. And they can be unsaved, just as there are unsaved people in any denomination.
So is the Pope calling God a liar by accepting evolution, or is it only me that is so doing?
Are Old Age Creationists calling God a liar by rejecting Young Earth Creationism?
Are you calling God a liar by rejecting Geocentrism?
Just how far down the rabbit hole in Wonderland does this go?
Allmendream I have referred you in the past, and do so again today to two young earth creation scientists who have made correct and accurate predictions regarding creation science.
It is only useless to you because you refuse to read the works of:
Dr. Russell Humphreys PhD and
Dr Walt Brown PhD.
More specifically the former in the book ‘Starlight and Time’
and the latter in the book ‘In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood’
Good day sir!
Oh, if I read their works THEN it would be of use doing WHAT exactly? What useful applications discoveries or predictions have been made via presupposition of supernatural causation?
Did they propose that this supernatural causation was measurable, replicable, understandable and predictable?
If not then how can one make accurate predictions based upon an unpredictable causation?
Starlight and time is apologetics to try to get the absurdly small square peg of Creationist chronology into the immense round hole of the actual age of starlight.
Apologetics is not now and never will be science.
Science is of use.
Creationism is useless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.