I totally agree with you here.
Post Hoc Defense
@Lynn_Munter I’m not sure what your goals are here.
@DennisVenema is part of this conversation too, and he can certainly clarify his points and explain himself. He does not need a lawyerly defense from other people. In fact, it appears he has already retracted (in his way) the points you are defending. If I am wrong, he can explain himself. The fact that he is not should tell us something.
Except its not correct.
There is no model in which we do not all descend from multiple couples. Even in Ken Ham’s young earth creationist model, we all descend from many couples. This is scientifically a mistaken and incoherent defense. If you are take this definition, there is not a single model proposed that fits this criteria, not even the most YEC of YEC models.
Exactly. And there is ZERO evidence that they do not begin as a single couple. Zero evidence. So how do we come to heliocentric certainty about a claim substantiated by zero evidence?
Except the statement is false. We do descend from only two Homo sapiens.
Except there is no confusion; at least Dennis and I do not appear confused. As written, the statement that “We do not descend from only two Homo sapiens” is just false. There is more than one way to take it, and one way is not contradicted by the evidence. This is not nearly as ambiguous as you are making it. Unqualified, it’s just a false statement.
Of course, in context, it is possible other things were meant. However, clear explanations would have broken it down showing, (1) if you mean in this way, the answer is ‘no’, but (2) if you mean it this way, the answer is ‘yes’. Given that we are talking about a book designed to elucidate the key issues to the public this is a major error. It’s most clearly consequential in that McKnight concludes that a genealogical Adam is not consistent with science. Dennis’ own co-author is so confused by the this error he misunderstands a central fact about the science. That is Dennis’s co author, by the way, making his most controversial theological point based on a misunderstanding of the science.
It is rare to see a consequential error of this magnitude. It’s better to retract errors like this than give lawyerly defenses.
Now, once again, I think this was an unintentional error. Everyone has been making this error. It is, nonetheless, and unambiguous error that misrepresents what we know about the science. Going forward, no one has an excuse about this any more. These post hoc, word parsing only erode trust. The people that will be trust are the ones that fix this scientific error in their future work. Those that are trusted will own up to the oversight.
@Lynn_Munter you are welcome to disagree with me, but I’m 100% sure that @DennisVenema does not need your defense. I’ve been inviting him to correct it for over a month now, and he has demurred. Wisely, because I am not misrepresenting him.
Of course, a clearer retraction from him would serve you. However, that does not appear to be his style. This is how @DennisVenema makes retractions.