Even Richard Dawkins is Right Sometimes (Is the Biblical story of Adam and Eve a myth?)

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.

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.

Can you define “macro” or “micro” for me such that it would be explainable?

Nothing your guy said addressed the issue how one change that was ten times as much could be micro - and could happen in a thousand years; while the other change that is ten times less can only be called macro and is supposedly impossible even after seven million years.

Your supposed geneticist point #4 is contrary to a basic knowledge of genetics. FOUR variations at any given genetic loci.

My point at the beginning of this thread stands.

Creationists say they don't believe in evolution or speciation or common descent of species - but apparently believe in it at thousands of times the rate and with an amazing power to change species over a very short period of time - as long as you call it “micro”.

You need to do some soul searching. Some actual research from non creationist sources - one who can count loci might help. I will pray for you.

"The theory of biological evolution that has “the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” is the one accepted by the Pope."

"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.

Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.

One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.

A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."

Creation Myths of the Tenured

I have read a number of the comments in this thread, and I must commend you. Your ‘arguments’ are right on and I support and agree with you. Be blessed.

“In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was already with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him. He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity. The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.” (John 1:1-5)

“The Word of life existed from the beginning. We have heard it. We have seen it. We observed and touched it. This life was revealed to us. We have seen it, and we testify about it. We are reporting to you about this eternal life that was in the presence of the Father and was revealed to us. This is the life we have seen and heard. We are reporting about it to you also so that you, too, can have a relationship with us. Our relationship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.” (1 John 1:1-3)

Here’s another response allmendream.... this one is from a PhD in Microbiology who has been published 10 times in scientific journals:

“He makes several invalid presuppositions. Is he so indoctrinated with ‘evolution’ that he assumes the creation model is just ‘fast’ evolution? Who says the creation model has to account for genetic descent from the mouse to a rat - in a short or long period of time? The creation model is NOT a model of common descent. That is a key difference between it and evolution. There is no reason to assume that mice and rats began as the same created ‘kind.’ I’m not sure if there is really a 10x difference between them, but if there is, so what? The creation model states that God created “kinds” individually, so it is very easy to assume that mice and rats represent separate created kinds. Thus, the genetic difference between them was placed in their genomes by God at the moment of creation - just as the Bible says (Gen 1 - Kinds were created individually and reproduced after their specific kind). Perhaps what the Bible says is not that important to this “Christian.”

The creation model has no need to account for the genetic difference by a process of mutation (as the evolution model does), since mice and rats don’t have to share a common ancestor. The creation model does not have God creating a proto-type organism and everything ‘evolved’ from that. That is his model, not ours.

Instead, what his model has to explain is the utter lack of genetic evidence that such changes could occur in over long periods of time. Lenski’s work with E. coli shows that over 50,000 generations (1 million years worth of human evolution), the only genetic changes found are degenerative and fall far far far short of the changes evolution would need to account for in a 1 million year period. A follow-up experiment with Fruit Flys is even less supportive. In 600 generations of Fruit Flys there were virtually no genetic changes that occurred, and the authors dejectedly concluded that the results were less than they had anticipated. In other words, from an experimental perspective, evolutionary change driven by mutation (i.e., Neo-Darwinism) could not be supported from the data. Funny this doesn’t seem to be making the ‘public rounds’ too much. On the other hand, both of these experiments are EXACTLY what the creation model would predict. Any genetic changes that do occur (and there can be significant changes, esp. immediate post Fall and post Flood) are degenerative in their nature and not useful for common descent, but certainly capable of introducing variation and diversity among the created kinds.”

schaef21 now speaking: I feel pretty silly, actually. I had accepted your premise.

Can this “argument from authority” actually count genetic loci this time?

So there is apparently no need to account for how “kinds” differentiated into different species (which is a model of semi-common descent) in “the creationist model”. That is why “the creationist model” is of no use in explaining or predicting anything.

It is easy to assume that mice and rats are different created kinds? You didn't think it was easy. You said the difference between the two was “micro” - do you now want to change your answer?

Again an attack on my faith. Would this august authority (who hopefully can count this time) put scare quotes around the Christianity of the Pope and every other Christian who accepts scientific theory?

“Any genetic changes that do occur (and there can be significant changes, esp. immediate post Fall and post Flood) are degenerative in their nature and not useful for common descent, but certainly capable of introducing variation and diversity among the created kinds.”

So NOW we are back to discussing genetic changes - something that the “creationist model” a few paragraphs before never ever had to account for - and he admits EXACTLY to my initial premise - that there can be SIGNIFICANT CHANGES “immediate post...Flood” - apparently at THOUSANDS of times the rate proposed by evolutionary biology - oh but you cannot call it evolution or (semi) common descent! And you have to call it “micro”!

Your supposedly credentialed creationist never explained what “micro” or “macro” was - or how the difference between a mouse and a rat would be “micro” as you asserted and be possible within a thousand years- while one tenth the difference can only be called “macro” and would be impossible after seven million years.

allmendream, you’ve become a caricature.

This will be the last post regarding this. I’ve had two PhD level scientists respond to you but you apparently think you know more than they do.

This is from the FIRST PhD in response to these things that you said:

***”A shorter generation time does not explain how ten times the difference can supposedly accumulate in a thousand years and be characterized as a “micro” change - while one tenth the difference is a “macro” change and would supposedly be impossible even after seven million years.
The different “molecular clocks” of rodents and primates doesn’t account for this either.

Two individual animals - unless magical - can only have a maximum genetic diversity of FOUR - IF each individual is a total hetero-zygote at each genetic loci and the mated pair don’t have any variations at all in common. Four.

Mice and rats are extremely well adapted - what would you expect them to change into within our lifetime? If you have come to expect the differentiation of the rodent “kind” into mice and rats within a thousand year span you will be disappointed. It took many millions of years to accumulate that much difference in genetic DNA - ten times the difference as between humans and chimpanzees.”***

***”Can you define “macro” or “micro” for me such that it would be explainable?
Nothing your guy said addressed the issue how one change that was ten times as much could be micro - and could happen in a thousand years; while the other change that is ten times less can only be called macro and is supposedly impossible even after seven million years.

Your supposed geneticist point #4 is contrary to a basic knowledge of genetics. FOUR variations at any given genetic loci.”***

Here is his response:

He did not listen to anything I said. His reply makes the same assumptions as his original and does not take into consideration any of my points. He also makes ridiculous statements like, “Mice and rats are extremely well adapted - what would you expect them to change into within our lifetime?” Who said anything about short-term changes?

1) Again, who said mice and rats are the same original created kind?

2) The differences in molecular clocks certainly weighs on the argument. A female Mus musculus, can have up to 10 litters per year. The average historical human generation time is 30 years. Their generation time is 1/300 that of man! Also, since the population size is more or less constant, the entire population turns over up to ten times a year, on average. After all that, there is ONLY 10-times the difference between rats and mice as between chimp and man? This is a surprise even under evolutionary assumptions.

3) He has not characterized the genetic differences between rats and mice. He is probably reiterating a fact he learned, but cannot decipher the details behind the fact for lack of experience in the field. Not trying to insult the guy, but facts are sometimes worthless without background understanding. In fact, there is more diversity within the common house mouse than within all of humanity put together, and much of the mouse diversity deals with karyotype variation (chromosomal inversions, fusions, and breakages). Etc. Etc.

3) microevolution vs. macroevolution.’ These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.

4) We do not need four alleles per variable locus to explain current human genetic diversity. In fact, all we need is two, and these would fit neatly into Adam: http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos

Schaef21:I suggest that you actually read what he says and take the time to dig into it.

The last one I sent you got a response in about 5 minutes. There’s no way you could have even digested it.

These answers are not from Joe Schmo they are from professional scientists working in the field who have attained PhD status.

Oh, the fallacy of argument from authority! An “authority” on genetics that apparently cannot even count loci!

Who said anything about short term change? YOU DID. It is the assumption that within a thousand years the rodent “kind” could differentiate into mice and rats - a “micro” change as you characterized it.

The molecular clock differences between rodents and primates is not sufficient to explain a proposed many thousand fold difference in rate of change - where ten times the difference can supposedly accumulate within a thousand years - but one tenth the difference would be impossible to accumulate even after seven million years.

The molecular clock differences are accounted for in the estimates of most recent common ancestry - and the human - chimp difference and the rat - mouse difference cannot be accounted for thus as ‘possible within a thousand years’ and ‘impossible even after seven million years’ within the context of the molecular clock that would predict ten times as much genetic difference based upon the molecular clock and time of common ancestry.

I did characterize the difference between mice and rats as being ten times the difference in GENETIC DNA as between a human and a chimp. The background understanding is that you assumed the difference between a mouse and a rat was “micro” - but insist that the difference between a human and a chimp is “macro” - but the one you call micro is hilariously TEN TIMES LARGER than the one you call macro!

His point on “micro” and “macro” left them undefined other than the typical dodge of “information”.

Perhaps your guy can explain to me why a bacteria under stress expresses an error prone DNA polymerase that will introduce mutations into its genome rather than the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase? I mean if there are scant examples even of adaptive “micro” evolution - why would the bacteria survive better during stress via introducing mutations?

Human genetic diversity is far greater than just TWO alleles. The supposed bottleneck limiting all animals to a maximum of FOUR different alleles is not enough genetic diversity to even explain the diversity within modern species - let alone enough diversity to explain how one “kind” can give rise to several different species.

Where did this genetic diversity come from?

I not only digested it, I dealt with every point! It was quite easy because your supposed experts apparently cannot even count!

So do you now want to change your answer about the difference between mice and rats being a “micro” difference?

I would understand why you would want to. But be warned! Once you allow actual evidence to change your opinion about creationism you may not be able to stop!

Most science and religion are unserious, but especially — one might say intrinsically — when they exclude each other.... A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings.

AMEN!!! to that, dear Matchett-PI!

I suspect allmendream may be a little confused — AFAIK, neither Pope John Paul II nor Benedict XVI has ever said that human beings come "from pre-existent and living matter." Neither man is hostile to the idea of biological evolution. But that is not the same as saying that the origin of life is (tautologically) pre-existently living matter. If this is what Darwin's theory requires, then neither of the Holy Fathers could plausibly be called a Darwinist.

Matter is dumb and lifeless. It is not the "source" of the living body, but the "building blocks" of it....

The "dust of the earth" was pretty much nothing, until God breathed life into it....

Gagdad Bob hits it out of the ballpark yet again! Thanks, Matchett, for the ping!

Naturalists, who believe only in nature and in nothing Supernatural have to ignore natural law to believe what they believe.

A most penetrating insight, schaef21!

RE: naturalist/materialist theory, there seems to be something "unnatural" about Natural Law: It does not fit within either evolutionary theory or scientific methods. So are we just to disregard it?

But if we disregard Natural Law, then how can we make sense of the world? The fundamental insight of Natural Law theory is that there is a direct correspondence between the natural world and the structure of the human mind — which is what makes the world intelligible, knowable by us.

Because a picture is worth a thousand words, I drew one, based on insights from the mathematician/theoretical biologist Robert Rosen:

Another point: Natural Law, or any law, is by definition what philosophy calls a universal. Universals are "supernatural" in that they are not direct observables — they are non-phenomenal objects, intangible, and thus cannot be tested by the techniques of science.

Rather, science proceeds according to the fundamental insight of Natural Law theory: that the universe is fundamentally knowable by the human mind.

If science didn't believe that, it wouldn't have a single thing to do.

Thanks so very much, schaef21, for your outstanding essay/post!

"...The "dust of the earth" was pretty much nothing, until God breathed life into it.... Gagdad Bob hits it out of the ballpark yet again!"

I agree. Here's more:

"There is a rabbinical tradition that attempts to read between the lines of scripture to discern its hidden meaning. In so doing, the rabbi will invent a midrash to illuminate a passage. These are often full of paradox, puns, wordplay and other midrashcally rabbitorahcal devoices, almost like zen koans.

"Sometimes a midrash is necessary when you encounter a couple of Bible passages that seem to contradict each other. I have always been intrigued by the fact that Genesis tells two very different versions of the creation of man. Most people seem to just skim over this inconsistency, but maybe God is trying to tell us something. Perhaps we need a midrash to reconcile the two.

"Boris Mouravieff had an interesting way of reconciling the two passages. That is, he felt that they were not referring to the same event, but to two distinctly different ones. In the pre-Adamic account in Genesis 1:27, both man and woman are created simultaneously. But in the second version in Genesis 2:7, God forms man “out of the dust of the ground,” and more importantly, “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” so that he became a truly “living being” with a divine spark within.

"You might say that God first created “horizontal man,” who is capable only of organic or biological growth. But he then corrected this deficiency by creating “vertical man” who is capable of spiritual evolution. This new kind of man, who had had a living soul breathed into him, “possessed in a latent state a potential that the purely animal world does not possess, that of passing on to the human and even superhuman stages of development."

"Before you get all high and mighty, bear in mind that this was all before the fall and much subsequent miscegenation between the children of light and the daughters of the earth: “Pursuing the mirage of temporal goods,” Adam and Eve lost touch with the higher intellectual center through which they had enjoyed direct contact with God. “The beauty of the daughters of men did the rest. Adam turned away from his real ‘I’ and identified with his personality.”

The Story of God and the Prodigal Scientist

"....Higher mammals may have some vague sense of the passage of time, but they are too immersed in it to gain anything like a clear view. My dogs can sometimes get (or at least look) bored, but they know nothing about the history of canines, to say nothing of how boring it is. Only man can be in the river of time while simultaneously laughing about it on the way to the bank.

What we call "Darwinian" evolution is obviously horizontal. It doesn't take a genius to notice that there are prokaryotes, then entry level eukaryotes, followed by reptiles, mammals, and humans, yada yada. But it cannot make any value judgments about the process, because in order to do so, one must stand in a transcendent, vertical space of qualities -- qualities such as truth, compassion, beauty, etc.

From a strictly horizontal Darwinian perspective, there would be no essential difference between, say, a cave painting and a spider's web or bird's nest. Or, if the differences are essential, then Darwinism has proved its own insufficiency.

Again, horizontal is to time what vertical is to space; science can pretend that only the former is "real," but the truth of the matter is that man cannot exist outside this total cosmic sensorium of vertical and horizontal, or quality and quantity, form and substance, facts and values, music and words, etc.

It is in this vertical sense that the cosmos "completes" itself in man -- or in the psychospiritual activity of man. Even looked at only horizontally, the cosmos is always surpassing itself, e.g., from matter to life to mind.

But it also transcends itself vertically in every act of knowing. Nothing in the cosmos is "complete" in itself. Rather, everything moves toward completion via relationship. Objects are related to, and find their completion in, the subjects who know them. And a subject cannot "be" itself unless it is situated in a world of objects that yield real knowledge.

But at the same time...." bttt

Dear friend, when the Pope said that "there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution," he expressly did not say Darwinian evolution.

If the Holy Father had particularly wanted to endorse Darwin's theory, he would have done so. The fact remains he did not.

I believe what the Pope was saying is that there is scientific "proof" (at least abundant evidence) for biological evolution — even cosmic evolution for that matter.

But this is what we would expect in a divinely created Cosmos evolving in space and time according to the divine Logos of the Beginning, from Alpha to Omega.

Darwinism carries absolutely no brief for that idea, certainly. Rather, the very contrary is asserted: In a nutshell, Darwinian evolution is not purposeful; it is "random," "unguided," essentially "accidental" and "opportunistic"....

How could you expect the Holy Father to endorse such an idea?

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.