I don’t think most of them spend much time at all thinking about science.
The ones I am around at church don’t think about science at all. Growing up in a Southern Baptist Church I can honestly say I never remember anything ever being said about evolution or science. And yes this was after Darwin came out with his book. 
3 Likes
I don’t know how old you are. But things do keep changing. I think I should remind myself to be more complete in my answers:
I fear the anti-science crowd, because they allow climate dis-information to breed.
But I also fear the I.D. crowd, because they seek to allow anti-science factions to gain control of the American political scene.
And that’s really twice as much fear as I can already accept.
1 Like
But I think that you also have patience enough to discuss things with them and wait. It takes a long time to come to terms with something you have been taught from the beginning was against all that is good and which may even put you in Hell.
Dr Carter and most of the YEC, OEC and yes, GA have good intentions. When you have an opportunity to argue for the truth or to seek out empathy, you first seek out empathy. I am going to see if I can contact Dr Carter again to talk on our thread. I have tremendous respect for many YEC. You can have a spiritual and moral maturity without understanding science, too. I know many YEC like that.
2 Likes
Same here , Bill. Which is why I spend time here.
3 Likes
I think Christy is correct: The vast majority of YEC adherents have a large set of concerns that the Genealogical Adam hypothesis does not address.
However, many ID adherents seem to part ways with the EC position over their desire to uphold a historical, miraculously created Adam and Eve. The GA hypothesis could therefore prove very fruitful in ID-EC discussions.
My $.02,
Chris
3 Likes
That is my perception as well. If the conversation partners can avoid being distracted by all the things they allegedly hate about each other in the meantime. 
3 Likes
You have given me the go-ahead to respond to Dr. Robert Carter’s comments.
Let’s start with his most sweeping dismissal:
"I am aware of Joshua Swamidass’ writings on this subject. …He solved one issue, but left many other unanswered. For example,
[a] the origin and definition of sin 1,
[b] the origin and meaning of death, and
[c] the reason Jesus had to die 1 to pay for sins.
All of these are addressed using straightforward biblical reasoning. His evolutionary approach leaves them all unsolved."
So this strikes me right away as coming from someone who really hasn’t understood the point of “Genealogical Adam”.
Depending on one’s personal inclination, or the inclination of your “mother denomination”, all these matters are automatically addressed to the extent they were ever invested in the bodies of historical “Adam and Eve” by conventional forms of Christianity!
G.A. says humanity, as briefly mentioned in Genesis 1, was created by means of the evolution of one of the branches of higher apes into Homo sapiens sapiens. They knew not the words of God and they were held innocent of their sin.
Then Genesis 2 describes the special creation of Adam and Eve; they tended a prototype garden. They heard the words of God. And they transgressed, and they were evicted from the garden and began to mingle with the larger pool of evolved humanity, having whatever genetic configuration necessary to be considered one and the same as rest of humanity.
Some might say that Adam and Eve brought Sin with them. Others might say that Adam and Eve were more important as the path to redemption than being the source of all transgression.
Computational simulations show that the redemption provided by being joined to the family of Adam/Eve was something that could happen within 2000 years, no matter how little immigration there was to the most obscure corners of the Earth. So, by the time of the birth of Jesus, even assuming the most recent appearance of Adam, all mankind would descend from Adam/Eve.
So until Dr. Carter understands the machinery of G.A., it doesn’t seem like he can offer much intelligent criticism of it.
Did you ever post an answer to my question about Carter’s responses? If you did, I must have missed it. Which one would it be?