This is a blog post and not a professional analysis, but I like how Libby Anne notices how an article about lack of genetic diversity in dairy cows reflects on common YEC teachings of her youth (and currently as well).
The quote from AIG at the end of the post was particularly jarring to me, having been told all my life that mutations are inherently bad which was therefore “proof” that evolution could not have contributed to any positive effect on a population’s traits.
I was not so taken aback by the mutation idea, as the thought that it was just fine if Noah’s daughter in laws were also his daughters. After all, no law yet. Just don’t let the boys see you naked. Do some actually think they were his daughters? Of course, that would get the genetic bottleneck down to two again, Noah and wife.
I missed that – yeah, very weird. It’s strange enough explaining incest away for Cain, so bringing up the possibility that much later in history just seems bizarre.
It is an interesting quote and article but for the sake of accuracy the blog has attributed it incorrectly to Answers in Genesis. It actually comes from a Creation Ministries International journal article. I know not that much of a difference but CMI and the author in particular does has some different views from AiG and I’m not sure AiG would ascribe to this hypothesis.
Thanks for that correction. That might explain why I’d never heard the idea that Noah’s daughters-in-law could be daughters. I’ll try to message the author about the misattribution since she would probably want to know.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.