What if we simply (but arbitrarily) defined humankind as the time in evolutionary history when a creature, belonging to the species Homo sapiens, longed to be connected to their Creator. [Note that this would include native Americans like Chief Seattle who saw and respected the Great Spirit who fashioned the stately forests and salmon-filled streams that graced his homeland.] Clearly this definition is aimed at satisfying those who highly value religion and theology in forming their world view. For those of us, like myself, who are leery of any belief that ‘flies in the face’ of science (archeology in this case), we can point out that some 40K - 50K yrs. ago Homo sapiens apparently took a Great Leap Forward, creating astonishingly ‘modern’ art, sculpture, and a belief in an afterlife. Without any known genetic change, they became Homo sapiens sapiens–i.e., US. We humans are thus NOT a finished product freshly made off a potter’s wheel. We are intermediary creatures whose exapted brains now operate as Minds capable of co-creating the kind of physical/spiritual being God intended prior to the Big Bang.
As a scientist, I am skeptical enough that I don’t expect to find the proof that biblical Christianity is True (capital T). It IS extraordinary that a band of simple fishermen (with help from one very articulate tentmaker) could start a movement that would spread world wide. But the spread of Islam and Buddhism also seems amazing to me. I for one accept Christianity because of Faith in the Truth that Jesus taught: that we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is the only way that a Homo sapiens, a product of the evolution that produced what we perceive as natural evil, can hope to become what Scripture promises: to become the Image of our Creator.
Currently science cannot provide us with a biological mechanism that would explain the GLF. But I am confident that in time it will. And when that happens it will in no way eliminate God’s role in it. As I see it, the biggest hurdle to overcome is facing up to the fact that, in using evolution as a creative tool, God did not create an Adam&Eve in sinless perfection, as Genesis would have us believe, but as one step on the way to become his Image Bearer. Jesus invites us to take the next steps.
Al Leo
I don’t “get” your objection. Sure… there are higher rates of mutation recombination. So? It’s not infinitely higher, is it?
If Evolutionary interpretation is correct, then there is a good chance (though not a perfectly certain one) that even with the dmonstrably higher rate of recombination, the Human HLA complex (with its thousands of alleles) may still be impossible to produce from one mated pair in just 6000 years.
Does someone have an equation here? Let’s just do the math?
What kind of indescribable recombination rate would it take to produce current Human diversity of HLA from 2 humans in 6000 years?
@gbrooks9
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I was looking for a million year long footnote.
Maybe your question is whether it is a Young Earth or not. It’s not my question. I don’t see the question of the possibility of 2 sole progenitors as inextricably linked with a young earth.
The question I started with was “how strong was the evidence against Adam,” posed to me by a philosopher. He was talking about the scientific evidence, so it was reasonable to examine the question scientifically. I read about Ayala’s work, and the challenges it faced; I read about various coalescence methods; I read about linkage disequilibrium; I read about genetic differences and similarities. I read about the fossil evidence.
The chief problems were two fold: a) there was not enough time for the coordinated mutations required for our evolution from an ape to us to have occurred without guidance, and b) the population genetics models did not test the scenario directly. We are working on our own models for these two things now.
I get a certain vibe from you that you think I have to please some imaginary young earth coalition. I don’t. The results will be whatever they are as to time scale, and none of it will test the age of the earth.
@agauger, that’s ironic.
Because I get a vague vibe from you that you are more interested in contradicting Evolutionists than you are in contradicting Young Earth Creationists.
you will probably notice that you are one of the chief editors of a book that totally trashes Christian Evolutionists.
Why is it that we don’t find in your Editorial contribution anything about how impossible it is for human genetic diversity as we see it today to be compatible with any Creationist scenario that includes the specification that the Earth cannot be much older than 6000 years?
You seem to be grooming a logical fallacy – that since Evolutionists are not measuring the age of the Earth when they calculate the amount of time it took for humans to evolve - - then you don’t have to worry about the Earth’s age in Creationist scenarios.
That kind of logic doesn’t work in both directions. The time it takes for humans to evolve is the minimum age of the Earth - not the maximum. So if Creationists insist that the Earth cannot be older than 6000 years (more or less), it means, ipso facto, that their belief in the origin of humanity starting no more than 6000 years ago is wrong as well.
And the correct analysis that you should be offering your Creationist colleagues is: If Human Genetic Diversity suggests a time period of 1,000,000 years (just a hypothetical number for the purpose of this thread), then Creationists are honor-bound (by their pursuit of what is Truth) to adjust their analysis of Genesis to be consistent with a 1 million year time frame, not a 6000 year time frame.
If you were to have written something like that in the book … think how well known you would be by now! You could probably walk into any Foundation and get a grant to further any part of your ongoing research!
@Swamidass, or @cwhenderson, do you think my analysis is on the right track? Am I way off base? Or do you think I’m giving a fairly reasonable assessment to our colleague, @agauger?
The book just plain makes me quite sad and a little angry, to be honest. Some of the quotes from the book introduction that @Bill_II posted are just plain inaccurate and off-base. Either those responsible for the book have not done enough investigation into what typical sentiments are among individuals that hold EC beliefs (the most likely scenario, in my opinion), or are misrepresenting those sentiments.
In any case, I have a hard time taking the “theological critique” part very seriously. It is difficult to listen to such accusations from those involved with DI, that institutionally makes no reference to the God of the Christian faith, leveled at Evolutionary Creationists that esteem God as Creator, through the process of evolution.
Agreed! I’m a little surprised that she would offer a critique of my posting, while at the same time totally dismissing any possible conflict between what she says she is researching compared to what she actually supports in that book. How odd.
We do not hide the age of the earth or of human fossils from anyone.
I can understand why you are angry about the book. My sole contribution was the editing of the science section. There are parts of it I would change if I could—but it’s my name on the cover, among others, so I bear some measure of responsibility.
All I can do is apologize for any representations that are false. Ask Stump.
What you don’t hide is the scientific consensus on the age of the earth and human fossils. However, I don’t see any evidence in that article that DI commits to these conclusions. On the contrary, the article ends with a complete and vigorous rejection of the idea that humans and apes have a common ancestor. It finishes thus.
But in spite of all this conflicting evidence, the holy cow of Darwinian evolution of humans from ape-like ancestors may not be questioned. Why? Because that would challenge the ruling scientific paradigm of naturalism. God forbid!
How can you say DI accepts the age of the earth and human fossils while DI claims humans did not evolve from pre-human ancestors? DI says “human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another, and the so-called transitional fossil record is highly fragmented”. If DI accepts the age of human fossils, then DI has to explain their origin in a way which either accepts evolution or provides strong evidence for an alternative explanation, or at the very least provides evidence falsifying evolution.
@jon[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:166, topic:37034”]
If DI accepts the age of human fossils, then DI has to explain their origin in a way which either accepts evolution or provides strong evidence for an alternative explanation, or at the very least provides evidence falsifying evolution
[/quote]
Your statement doesn’t follow. What would we have to do if we didn’t accept the age of fossils? Same thing?
We don’t _have_to do anything, until such time as we have a case to make, and you don’t get to tell us what that case is or should be. Lay off, Jonathan
I think you could do something a little more than apologize. All you have to do is use your considerable credibility within the Creationist community and explain to them that human genetic diversity is not compatible with a single mating pair, and their progeny, having only 6000 years to produce humanity as we find it today.
What reason would you have for not guiding the Evangelical community with truthful scientific realities?
@cwhenderson, or @Jonathan_Burke,
do either of you have some alternate suggestions for what else Dr. Gauger could do besides just apologize?
[quote=“agauger, post:167, topic:37034”]
Your statement doesn’t follow.[/quote]
Why doesn’t it follow?
No. You would have to explain their true age, and why the dating is wrong.
No one is telling you what your case is or should be. We know what your case is. You have already made your case. It’s called Intelligent Design. You claim it’s superior to evolution as an explanation of all the evidence which evolution purports to explain. But if you want people to believe it, which you very clearly do, then you need to provide evidence for it, which you are obviously trying to do. So I am not asking you to do anything which you don’t already believe you need to do, and which you aren’t already trying to do.
Remember, you’re claiming that ID is based on science. If you want people to accept your case for ID based on science, then at some point you have to actually do science. You’re clearly aware of that, which is why you have been doing science to try and find evidence for ID. But all your science so far seems to be focused on “How can we prove that evolution can’t explain everything?”.
However, if you would rather say “We believe it is legitimate to reject the scientific claim that humans are the product of evolution from pre-human ancestors, without the necessity of providing any alternative explanation for the origin of human and pre-human fossils which are explained by evolution, and without providing any evidence falsifying evolution”, then you should say that loudly and clearly.
@gbrooks9
You have a high opinion of the power of my words. The experiments we are engaged in will demonstrate that 6000 years is not enough if it is true. It will become clear that you can’t model in enough diversity in 6000 yrs with the right allele spectra, linkage disequilibrium, etc. If all the books written so far have not persuaded YEC, my words won’t. But a serious demonstration might.
I propose exactly the same thing in another thread. What is stopping you from developing a broad range of scenarios, to see which factors have the most influence, and the plus/minus range of results?
This “thing” that I am seeing so many ID proponents do lately - - where you ask a scientist to prove their assumptions for their calculations… that is an exercise guaranteed to foment all sorts of conflict.
It’s like asking someone to try on a pair of shoes and ask them to prove that those shoes really do fit right?
Instead, pull out your own pair of shoes, and see if your feet can get in them! If you can’t get a foot into a shoe, we all know there is something wrong.
And when you accomplish something with one of your more optimistic scenarios, everyone can focus their attention on what exactly gave it the ability to produce good results…
When the DI first went down this path - claiming that the entire field of population genetics was an exercise in question-begging is how Stephen Meyer put it, if I recall correctly - I was very surprised. This has nothing to do with detecting design - it makes no sense for an organization devoted to design detection to spend time and resources on such an activity. To me this indicated that the DI was willing to be more overt about its specifically Christian concerns.
