Last month, I posted an article challenging some Christian scientists for saying that Adam and Eve could not have been historic persons. I wondered how far professing Christians would allow evolutionary thinking to push them away from Biblical faithfulness.
Now, here is an excellent article that makes the case for a historic Adam and Eve, taking into account "genetic evidence.": http://a-short-saying.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-tale-of-two-cases.html
The problem with this post is that the author picks only the part of the evidence that supports his predetermined conclusion, throws out everything else, and moves along (for example, "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y Chromosome Adam" supposedly lived thousands of years apart according to the modeling that this guy suggests.) If you look carefully, you'll see that atDNA evidence supports there being one common ancestor that lived only a few thousand years-- but that same evidence makes it pretty clear that this ancestor had plenty of other contemporaries who simply didn't have their genes passed on.
ReplyDeleteAgain, when it comes to highly contentious issues like this, you absolutely must do some background reading before quickly re-posting something. Just as you would not trust someone who is not a Biblical scholar and doesn't trust in the authority of the Bible to comment on the meaning of a Biblical passage or an apparent contradiction, so also a brief lay interpretation of genetic modeling ought to be suspect.
Matthew, you've been awfully condescending to me lately. Thank you. :)
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I'm not going to disbelieve the Bible based on the latest genetic theories of science. Nor am I going to modify my approach to hermeneutics every time a new theory emerges from the scietific community. I thought this guy had an interesting alternative theory. Since I have no desire to submit me faith in the Bible to the "higher authority" of the scietific community, I guess I'll just be content to be an anti-scientific troll. :)
I am nearly 100% certain that, 20-25 years from now, geneticists will have an entirely different theory reagrding these models and that that theory, while completely contradicting this one, will also deny the possibility of a historical Adam and Eve. Read any science textbook from 30 years ago and you'll see why I won't build my house on the shifing sand of pevailing scientific opinion.
Oh, and what ever happened to the hole in the Ozone Layer? I thought for sure we'd all be frying by now! ;)
Much love. Praying for your recovery!
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI do not mean to be condescending and I apologize if what I have said has hurt you. However, I think it's unacceptable (not just as a pastor/educator but as my friend) for you to post things that have been rebutted elsewhere.
For example, suppose one of your friends (like me!) posted an article from a scholar talking about how the word "head" in Ephesians 5 often means "source" and thus we should rethink our ideas of headship in the church and family. This would be foolish of me, because there are plenty of thoughtful people who have also written about this and it's intellectually lazy of me to proffer a link like that with my wholehearted support when the issue has been examined elsewhere and my evidence found wanting. At the risk of overstating my case, disseminating something poorly written without trying to verify it is, well, spreading misinformation. And despite your very good intentions to defend the truth of the Bible, it doesn't glorify God to defend His Word with misinformation.
This is part of why I haven't personally posted anything about creation/evolution in over a year and why I only respond to you when I get the sense that you are trying to talk directly to me through your posts-- I think the issue creates more heat than light, in general.
Again, I don't want to be condescending. I just think that if you're going to speak out on these things, you could do a lot, lot better than you have with this example.
Thank you very much for your prayers!
Michael, you claim that the author of the Adam and Eve article has been rebutted elsewhere but you give no actual rebuttal beyond the mentioning of the space between "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y Chromosome Adam." Can you post something to back up this claim?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you read the first article that this author wrote on Adam and Eve (http://a-short-saying.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-was-adam.html), you will find he is not being selective on the evidence but actually addresses the very time disparity that you mention and shows that it harmonizes with the Biblical account as well.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing. Honestly, I didn't source a rebuttal link because my comment wasn't terribly concerned with arguing the details of what Jason had posted, but making the point that he really ought to be looking it up himself. It is very easy to find informed scientific discussions of our most recent common ancestor on places like talk.origins (or, for example, this detailed article: http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm )
The "Noah" explanation in the prior article is interesting and does address the question of timing (somewhat-- it's certainly not palatable to any young-earth models); but still does not actually address the big issue that creationists want to prove-- that is, mitrochondrial DNA proving that mitochondrial Eve = Biblical Eve = the first human woman.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteDon't you think the fact that different scientific models can come up with such vastly different answers to the same question might call into question the very validity of the models themselves? I'm not convinced that this attempt to trace ancestry through genetic markers is anything more than hocus-pocus nonsense at this point. From what I understand, it does not really correlate with anything in the known fossil record, as spotty and unreliable at that evidence itself is.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteNope! That is how science has always worked and always will work. Everything from how the stars move to the best treatment for an acute heart attack has been fiercely debated by intelligent scientists who disagree strongly on what conclusions the evidence leads us to. The history of science is full of interesting twists, turns, and reversals, but the controversies and divergent theories have, in general, only served to spur further research and discussion instead of throwing our hands up at the "hocus pocus." There is also a very strong consensus on a lot of things that the evidence we do have points us to, even if all the details are unclear (and always will be.) What we have learned always builds on what came before as we are constantly refining our theories; at the same time there's a lot of basic stuff well-supported by lots of evidence that we provides the framework for our theories to be fleshed out in.
To say that the science of gene sequencing to ascertain our genetic lineage should be rejected because it leads to divergent theories is like saying that the Bible is unreliable because Biblical scholars disagree on matters like the date of the Exodus, the authorship of Hebrews, or the inclusion of passages like John 8:1-11. The very basic conservative assumptions about the authority, inspiration, and reliability of the Bible are thoroughly agreed upon and well-supported by the evidence, but there are individual controversies that cause plenty of interesting discussion.
If you're really interested in the subject, I'd strongly recommend that you pick up a good book about cell & molecular biology (or molecular genealogy) and learn more about it so that you can engage with the discussion more. It's a pretty fascinating subject.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI've read enough to know that it's a theory based on assumptions I do not accept, namely the neo-Darwinian consensus of common descent from a single ancestor (meta-evolution). As I reject philosophically, theologically and Biblically the whole theory of Darwinism, the models Darwnists use to support their theories actually don't interest me all that much. Now you could accuse me of being willfully ignorant, and I suppose you would have grounds for doing so, but I still believe that theology is the Queen of the Sciences and that knowledge of God and the Scriptures must be foundational to our understanding of the world. Plus, I think science should be focused on the present and the future, on things the scientific method can legitimately address and things which are useful for the betterment of the world.
I think science has been seeking for years to grow beyond its legitimate bounds into an all-encompassing source of knowledge and wisdom. Science has an important role, a vital place within the whole of academia and society. It's job is NOT to tell us where we came from and how we got here. I think that, as science has endeavored to do that illegitimate project, it has encouraged atheistic thinking. Why? Because science is built on a "closed universe" model. It is based on naturalistic assumptions and methods of operations. That's fine. You can't explain how a reaction works by appealing to divine intervention. But I think it's led to a dualistic approach to the universe: that which is naturalistic is not supernatural. In other words, if I can explain how a drug works to combat a disease, I can then say that God had nothing to do with it. A more robust explanation needs theology to explain that every scientific discovery, every advance in medicine, every truth discovered and applied is a gift from God and it is all divinely given. It's not the job of science to do that, but it is the job of science not to try to assert so much that it would dent such explanations. I think too often scientists have been driven to say more than they can/should legitimately say and, in the process, have used science as a tool to deny the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteWhile there have been plenty of scientists who choose to try to use science as a wedge against traditional Christian beliefs, I think that if we are genuinely committed to the pursuit of truth, there is nothing in science that we can find that will truly undermine the teaching of Scripture. I think it's silly to say that science should not investigate where we came from and how we got here (I would assume you say this because the Bible teaches us about how we were created by God); if God didn't want us to try to figure out our genetic ancestry, He wouldn't have made our genes so darn interesting. Understanding our molecular ancestry may also provide useful directions in research for understanding how our bodies work (for example, language development is a fascinating field in evolutionary biology that I think has hundreds of real-world applications once we understand the genetic processes that underlie our ability to think and talk.) I feel like your perspective only encourages hostility and suspicion between scientists and theologians, which I do not think has served to bless either group (after all, scientists do not appreciate being told that their life's work is "hocus pocus" any more than you do.) I have never heard of or met an evolutionary scientist who was convinced by creation science that the Genesis account was valid and from there began a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, which is what one would expect would happen occasionally if God intended for creation science apologetics to win people to faith.
Science must work from a "closed universe" model. If you do not have naturalistic assumptions, you cannot actually run meaningful experiments. ("Group A had a 10% increase in Parameter X compared to Group B. This was likely due to our administration of Drug Y, however, we cannot rule out divine intervention and thus our data are invalid.") I think that your sentence about recognizing all that we discover being a gift of God is really crucial and right; that sort of worldview transforms everything that we learn from our scientific endeavors. All institutions have sought, over the centuries, to grow beyond their legitimate bounds into all-encompassing sources of wisdom and direction for society-- even the church! That doesn't mean that we need to beat science down. Scientists know that we'll never be able to know everything about everything, especially the past. But I think that pursuing whatever knowledge we can from the resources we have (and our genes are a pretty cool way of doing that) is a good thing, and whatever we learn isn't going to undermine the Bible if we don't let it. Does this leave lots more questions about interpreting the Bible than we had before? Of course! Has there ever been a time when there was definitive conclusion & agreement among faithful Christians about all the Bible teaches and its place in history? No. Have the uncertainties ever stopped us from being convinced of the truth of God's Word? No.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI agree that one cannot "prove" the mitochondrial Adam is the historical Adam but one also cannot prove that he is not. In fact, this guy by his own admission is not trying to "prove" that. His "informed" analysis of the data affirms the link you provided but disagrees on the interpretation of the data. He is not trying to "prove" this DNA must be the Biblical people, but, in his own words, what he is "trying to do is show that Collins’ interpretation of the data is not the only valid interpretation. It is equally valid, and I think more supportable, to say that human origins can be traced back to one man and one woman–Adam and Eve. So, far from ruling out a historical Adam, the genetic evidence supports it as one of the valid interpretations of the data." I think he has successfully done that.
All scientific data has to be interpreted and there is often more than one interpretation that is valid. What this guy has done is take the data (and I think the accusation of him being selective is invalid, as his first article shows) and shown how one of valid interpretations of the scientific data fits the Biblical accounts of both creation and the Flood. He has also shown the difficulty with the evolutionist interpretation of the data is. You may not agree with him but I do not think you can accuse him of being uninformed.
Also, he does not seem to be a young-earth creationist. He obviously affirms the historicity of Adam and Eve but also seems to accept old-earth dates. I do not see a problem with that. My own denomination, the PCA, has accepted the 24-hour view, day-age view, analogical view, and framework view of Genesis.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteMy comment about selective evidence had more to do with the fact that the author didn't really engage in any discussion about autosomal DNA; he said it was clearly less reliable than mitochondrial DNA because of increased mutation rates, which is not really a statement I think he's particularly qualified to make.
I appreciate you mentioning the PCA, as I myself am a PCA member who holds to the framework hypothesis, much to Jason's consternation. ; )
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteI am not really qualified to make a judgment on his valuing/devaluing of the autosomal data. But, I do still find his argument impressive overall. I find it encouraging, myself.
I am fairly new to this blog, so I am not sure what Jason's view is, but you are in good company on the framework view. Meredith Kline, Bruce Waltke, et al are formidable, highly-respected scholars. I personally am not quite sold on their interpretation of Gen. 2:5, which the framework view seems to hinge on, however, I think it has merit and I think it was wise of the PCA to establish it as acceptable. I, personally, hold to a day-age view, right now anyway. :)
Have you read the PCA's creation report? It discusses the four views I mentioned above: http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI have read the PCA creation report; I have found it interesting and helpful!