I’ll have to refer you to @Jay313’s summary again concerning the actual evidence from experts in the relevant fields. It’s not just a matter of how close something was…
The resulting Bass Strait isn’t your average body of water. The seabed rises abruptly on both ends of the channel, which amplifies the energy of the tidal currents and creates dangerous rips. The Tasman Sea and the Southern Ocean meet in the Bass Strait, and when oceans collide, rough waters are the inevitable result (e.g. the Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn). On top of everything else, Tasmania sits squarely in the “roaring 40s” – a band of strong winds that circle the globe around the Southern Hemisphere’s 40th latitude. As they whip around Antarctica, these winds meet no resistance from any land masses except Tasmania, New Zealand, and the tip of South America. Everything considered, Bass Strait has a well-earned reputation as one of the most dangerous and unpredictable marine passages in the world.
Or something along these lines:
An expert on ancient seafaring, anthropologist James F. O’Connell scoffed when asked about Swamidass’ proposal that one boat per century possibly made the crossing. He said, “An island hop from Melbourne to King Island is about 120 kilometers (75 miles), which is within the scale of crossings made further north in the Pleistocene. But the risk of crossing Bass Strait is much greater than in the tropics – colder, rougher water. There’s no evidence of Holocene watercraft in South Australia capable of making this transit. So, no, the supposition is not reasonable.”
So you in your expertise derived from a few Google searches and some arithmetic are disputing what the actual experts on the Bass Strait claim about the actual history and sea conditions of the region? If I’m being misled by anyone, it’s not random people on an internet forum, it’s academics Jay cited, and it appears other people are taking seriously too, hence the OP
So you totally deflect my question about God’s providence by retreating into geography lessons? … and probably genetic markers too?
Come on, Peva, “give me a break”.
Do you think God is unable to send a boat to Tasmania or not? Even Atheist Scientists tell us that rats got to Australia . . . with no boat at all.
Your fixation with the science of “limits to prehistoric travel” looks terrible on your countenance… or is it simply you without any religious [cosmetic] foundation?
And I am a Unitarian Universalist who rolls my eyes when I encounter a Trinitarian who thinks God, in all his foreknowledge, read @Jay313’s thread and said:
“You know, Jay will be right about this… no sane human would even try this.”
.
.
.
IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
Christy, what are you saying here? Didn’t I say that the boats would be shipwrecks?.. or driven off course by storms? Did I once say that an intelligent human being got up one morning and said:
“I am going to sail off in a completely unwise direction, to my certain death, but I think it will be fine?”
What do the limits of ancient maritime technology have to do with God’s providence? ugh.
We aren’t talking about what God can and can’t do, we’re talking about the truth about what actually happened. Personally, I don’t read anything in the Bible that claims anything remotely close to “Tasmania was not really isolated from pre-history to the 1800s.” If other people read that implication into something the Bible says, they have to do the gymnastics to get that to fit with reality. I don’t see how it is different from the kind of contortions that go into flood geology. Sure, God can do anything. But that doesn’t mean he actually did do everything we can imagine him doing and need him to do to hold on to the theological constructs we are committed to holding on to.
No, you are mistaken. GAE is talking about how things COULD have happened. Intentionally confusing the audience by ignoring God’s participation in the scenario is not copacetic.
You might as well say that God made no effort to spread the Adam/Eve lineage at all… that He made a mental note to himself that if Adam’s kindred couldn’t get where they needed to go, or to even ensure that the lineage didn’t become extinguished in the midst of evolved humanity (in order to allow universal human redemption per Romans 5) … then just too bad for the Adam lineage, or the Tasmanians, the Australians, the Innuit, and anyone else skipped over.
None of the YEC’s we speak to think Tasmanians aren’t descended from Adam… so why would you intentionally ADD that road block in a Christian scenario designed to appeal to YECs?
There’s something weird going on over here at BioLogos … I’d prefer to think it’s just plain stubbornness of the mind - - getting in the way of flexibly dealing with a new world view - - rather than wonder something even less appealing.
.
.
.
Important Note: I mentioned God’s role in the genealogy of Adam for an important reason. NOBODY has genetic proof that Adam’s lineage survived to Noah’s generation. And so even without the genealogical component of GAE, none of the GAE scenarios have SCIENCE that says Adam’s lineage survived to the time of Jesus. But I don’t notice anyone writing about that “problem”. If you aren’t going to reject the survival of Adam’s lineage (because of the lack of science), then you can hardly reject the lack of a one-off boat or two to Australia and Tasmania either. (cc: @swamidass )
I think Scripture itself could be a form of “evidence”, if there are enough compelling reasons to interpret it in a particular way. For me the resurrection of Jesus definitely falls into that category. I have no scientific evidence that dead people rise again. Yet I think that it did happen.
To be clear, I’m not saying that I put the crossing of the Bass Strait in the same category as the Resurrection. I’m just referring to the hermeneutical principles underlying people’s responses to the scientific evidence might be the same.
I think the number of ad hoc explanations here matters. One ad hoc, improbable single crossing across the Bass Strait could be an acceptable epistemic price to pay if it clears us of certain theological problems. (Again, this is not my personal opinion that it did happen, just underlining the reasoning.) This is miles and miles away from YECs positing innumerable miracles to preserve a young Earth.
You’re in luck! I just wrapped up a new post on the subject. It’s actually going to blow some people’s minds, I think. Adam’s Evolutionary Journey, Pt. 3 becomingadam.com
Sorry, I haven’t had time even to look at Joshua’s post. I was busy producing a podcast this morning, and I went to my stepdaughter’s graduation from the Univ. of New Mexico last night. I mention it only to say that a mariachi band played the recessional while the graduates marched out. Lol. Only here … Not really NEW, Not really MEXICO
I’ll try to get around to it later or in the morning. I gather from glancing through this that Joshua thinks I misquoted the book. He doesn’t really understand the publishing world. I requested a review copy from IVP, and they emailed a PDF of the first set of proofs. I’d be glad to “print” any pages in question and post them for review, although it might be a little embarrassing for Swamidass. I didn’t mention the numerous errors because my heart went out to the editors. Lots of work there!
It is difficult to disagree with the assertion that the early chapters of Genesis are observationally/scientifically false.
I think it may be more relevant to say that some early chapters of Genesis are Biblically false when embraced as literal history: there are two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation which are mutually exclusive as literal history. That doesn’t mean the scriptures are false or untrue, only that our insistence on literal interpretation is flawed.
Our modern, Western inclination and mentality is to view passages as literal history. The texts may have, in part, been written for us, but they were not written to us. The people to whom they were written had a different method of interpretation.
The resurrection is different. There is no way I can see to read the texts or to see the history of Christianity without recognizing the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred and was the reason Christianity outlived the first century.
No it’s not. Because you interpret meaning before you assign truth value. All you can say is that a given interpretation of what is being observed or scientifically claimed is false. You can’t say “the early chapters of Genesis are scientifically false,” if the meaning interpreted has nothing to do with science. That’s like saying Emily Dickinson’s poem How The Old Mountains Drip With Sunset is false. It’s a meaningless assessment based on a determination of the poem’s meaning that is obviously not intended.
The first creation story clearly says man was created three days after plants had sprung up.
The second creation story clearly says man was formed before any plants had sprung up.
As literal history, these two stories are mutually exclusive.
The first creation story says man was created after the animals.
The second creation story clearly says man was formed before the animals, and that man was alone so God formed the animals in search of a partner for him.
As literal history, these two stories are mutually exclusive.
The first creation story says God created by decree and had the earth bring forth.
In the second creation story, God (with a different name) formed with His own hands.
As literal history, these two stories are mutually exclusive.
Emily Dickinson’s poem clearly states the dun brake is draped in cinder by the wizard sun. So what? It’s not “scientifically false” because it doesn’t make a scientific observation.
Look, I’m not going to repeat myself seven times so you can keep not granting I’m making a valid point. It’s tangential to the thread anyway.
I think your analogy is a very good one. But I am a Unitarian, and I see almost all of the Bible with the perspective you describe.
Formally speaking, Unitarians dont even endorse the resurrection of Jesus!
So imagine all those times I defended the BioLogos stance. Imagine all the times all sorts of pro-Evolution atheists defended the Evolutionist stance of BioLogos?
We were adopting a stance that you would have “tut-tutted”! If anyone asked all of us Unitarian and “Null-itarians” what we thought REALLY happened… we would have had to say the “mountains never actually DRIPPED”! - - there was no literal resurrection.
THE KEY?
The GAE scenarios are MULTIPLE. Nobody says a GAE scenario HAS to be a certain way… because that’s for each individual believer to decide!
But woe to the man or woman who uses science absolutism to dissuade a Christian out of some providence that could make another Christian’s walk easier.
What exactly are you imagining is “the BioLogos stance” here? That Scripture needs to be properly interpreted? That correctly identifying the communicative intent of a passage matters? I’m pretty sure that is not unique to BioLogos.
I think the best non-historical Adam versions present Adam as an established Jewish literary figure that Paul used for his own rhetorical purposes to teach Christology.
But in any case, there is a difference between theology that “requires” a historical Adam of some kind (many options for which have been described in articles here) and a theology that “requires” a historical Adam that is also the literal universal ancestor of every human or that “requires” that historical Adam to be literally created out of dirt and given a wife literally created out of his rib.
So put a paraphrase of your description into the tent event. I stand pat with my original wager!
A YEC is not going to start with a group who makes Adam an allegory… compared to another pro-Evolution group that actually promotes the idea of an historical Adam!
I am somewhat with Christy on this one. I read your thoughts and appreciate that they are things you have developed as a way of making sense of things…also you are, by your account, terminally ill and tired…But there is no need to suppose that others are believing in a lying God or wanting a “false bible” or etc. It seems a bit of an overstatement. And, BTW, those ancients were not “dumb.” They were just like you and me. Some of us, likewise, have no stomach for quantum physics or plate techtonics…so God made His point in ways that we WOULD have the stomach for. This is not to be confused with Him thinking we are “dumb.”
I will try out your suggested websites and hope that you have a merry Christmas!!
