Can someone explain like I'm 5 yo, what's wrong with this refutation of Biologos?

Hi Eddie,

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you had the fall in mind, but upon re-reading is see that that was an assumption on my part.

I too am no expert on Orthodox teachings. Nor am I aware of how they deal with non-Adamite humans, etc. One major difference, however, is that they do not have a model of original sin that requires biological descent from Adam.

I think I’ll not divulge the denomination I’m in here on the forum, sorry. It’s no secret; those who know me personally know where I and my family attend. If I post that info, however, surely some will begin to pick through that denomination’s theological statements and offer opinions on how I am not in compliance with them, in their opinion. I’d rather not deal with that. My local congregation knows my views, knows of my work with BioLogos, and has welcomed our family with that knowledge. I am considered a member in good standing and I trust my local leadership to let me know if they see problems with my theology.

One question that entered my mind today in light of this conversation was to wonder how you deal with the Neanderthal and/or Denisovan interbreeding issue? Even if one holds to Adam and Eve as sole genetic progenitors of humans, what of non-human species that interbreed with their offspring? I, as someone of northern European ancestry, have Neanderthal ancestors. How does that work in an Augustinian framework? Or can it?

3 Likes

A few thoughts:

Science doesn’t offer “proof”. Science hasn’t “proved” that the earth orbits around the sun (or their common barycenter, if you want to get technical). All the available evidence we have supports that interpretation, but science always remains open to new evidence. Proof is for alcohol and mathematics.

The evidence we have (and in my opinion it is very good evidence) supports that our ancestral population size has not been below 10,000 individuals in the last 12-16 million years. This time point is the divergence with the orang-utan lineage, giving us opportunity to use incomplete lineage sorting as a means to estimate our common ancestral population size. We can also “check in” at the divergence with the lineage leading to gorillas, as well as chimpanzees. We see populations of about 50,000 at each of these points.

The interbreeding with other species also complicates this picture, unless one takes the YEC route of saying everything after Homo erectus was descended from Adam and Eve. In OEC scenarios, these interbreedings are looked at as bestiality. How that works in light of the fact that many of us (yours truly included) descend, in part, from Neanderthals is not explained. How that fits within an Augustinian framework of original sin is also not explained (at least I have not seen any attempts as of yet).

3 Likes

There are two issues at play once you include Neanderthals and Denisovans - one is that these are more types of genetic diversity to account for, and ones that are markedly different from present-day human variation. If they are included as fully human, then trying to fit their diversity into the human lineage exacerbates the problem. The human effective population size would then be more than 10,000, and significantly more.

The second issue is that the common Neanderthal/Denisovan common ancestral population branches off of the human lineage before there are anatomically modern humans. Including them as human ancestors thus means including species that are not anatomically modern as human.

1 Like

There is evidence for this in Neanderthals late in their history, yes - but they had a long run without these features present. Likewise even anatomically modern humans have no sign of these features when we first appear in the fossil record. If this is the measure of what is “human”, then the earliest members of our species might not fit your definition.

And as for the Denisovans, we have no idea what sorts of abilities they had. We don’t even have remains beyond finger bones and teeth.

1 Like

Hello Walt,

I didn’t write “common,” so it’s not clear to me why you put it in quotation marks.

It’s far more about differences (polymorphism of a population) then it is about commonalities or similarities. That’s why “some DNA shared across all humans” in no way contradicts the strong conclusion that we are all descended from Africans.

For more of the details of where we are coming from, you will find them in our book “How Did God Do It? A symphony of Science and Scripture.” We work from the presence that there can be an explanation for creation other than “God with a magic wand” than also does not conflict with the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity.

Well, maybe, but as far as I can tell, every single time someone has tried to put that principle into practice, they’ve failed. That doesn’t give me much cause to uphold it as a useful principle.

“But Romanism teaches men to hate, and, if they are able, to persecute to the death all who will not receive it. Its deeds have been diabolical and murderous.”

“To aid such a system is to fight against God. He demands that we “resist the devil” (James 4:7), and have no fellowship with “works of darkness” (Eph. 5:11). 'No peace with Rome, must be on our lips, and in our lives.”

“We are informed by God that this system is the work of Satan.”

(“Is Romanism Christianity?”, T.W. Medhurst, The Fundamentals Vol XI, p. 104, p. 110, p. 111.)

“Cardinal Manning said: ‘The Catholic Church is either the masterpiece of Satan or the kingdom of the Son of God.’ Unquestionably, it is not the latter. Cardinal Newman declared: ‘Either the Church of Rome is the house of God or the house of Satan; there is no middle ground between them’ (Essays 11, page 116). We solemnly affirm that she is not the former. The Church of Rome is Satan’s counterfeit of the true Church of Christ.”

(“Rome, the antagonist of the nation”, J.M. Foster, The Fundamentals vol XI, p. 113.)

If you want to avoid the taint of America, try the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXV)

You mean doctrines like infant baptism?

3 Likes

It’s not a great record, is it? Scientists have proved consistently more reliable in discovering the facts about the universe through science, than theologians have in arriving at facts about the universe through reading the Bible. That right there tells us theologians need to take a back seat to scientists when it comes to the natural world, and keep their mouths shut about subjects concerning which they are ignorant.

Touche!

2 Likes

Every time I look at the title of this thread, I chuckle. As a father to young children, I’m trying to imagine a five-year-old actually understanding any of these comments… :smiley:

3 Likes

All of Anglo-American protestantism had a strong anti-Catholic streak, as far as I know. I don’t see why you get to dismiss it as an ugly irrelevance. It was an important evangelical belief, one grounded firmly in scripture and in other core doctrines. In fact, the reason those articles were included in The Fundamentals is that anti-Catholicism was waning, and the authors were calling evangelicals to the barricades to defend this important belief against those who would change it.

For me, anti-Catholicism was a far more important teaching than monogenism. The latter is a theory about the distant past that has no bearing on the actual spiritual life of almost anyone, while the former had a profound effect on the relationships, life, and sometimes death, of millions of Christians. But that is perhaps because I primarily think of “Christianity” not as a set of abstract declarations of fact but as the religious beliefs, practices and experiences of those who adhere to it.

No, I’m trying to point out that evangelicals have been perfectly willing to discard long-held core Christian beliefs, and that you’re probably fine with that too in some cases.

Have I given any indication that I’m denying those things?

Necessary for salvation? No, they don’t agree on that at all. “Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” is not part of the doctrine of many evangelicals.

Again, necessary for what?

I think I can understand the reasoning behind this title. It’s something I’ve noticed with quite a lot of YEC articles. They start off with an impressively clear, easy to understand, and accurate description of the area of science concerned, perhaps with some weasel words about “evolutionists” and “assumptions” thrown in, but clear, accurate and easy to understand nonetheless. Then about halfway through, I’ll suddenly find that I’ve completely lost track of the argument that they’re making.

It kind of leaves you feeling stupid, because since you’ve followed all the science up to that point and you’ve all of a sudden encountered something that you don’t understand, you think they’re talking about something that you should know. Like when they started talking about Mendel’s Accountant, my first reaction was, am I supposed to know what that is already?

In reality, what’s happened is that they’ve changed gear from A-level to final-year undergraduate or even postgraduate level.

I’m not entirely sure why they do this, but it’s not good science writing. Anyone who is responsibly trying to communicate science will keep their exposition of it at the same educational level throughout.

Correct. The current alliance between evangelicals and Catholics only began in the late 1970s.

“They all say the Lord’s Supper is necessary.”

The Salvation Army doesn’t practice baptism or communion.

1 Like

agree that is is amusing. It is really tempting also to simply reply: “Because I said so!”

3 Likes

Right… those are “works” - - and some of the more clever Protestant churches say they require the “works” for membership in their particular building - - not for salvation.