Sure, but so?:
Many Christians have rejected the scientific theory of evolution in part because they think it rules out the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. Yet some scientists and theologians argue that recent breakthroughs in genetics make a historical Adam and Eve compatible with evolution, and that this development may help bridge what many see as a conflict between faith and science.
“For over 160 years, the societal conflict over evolution has been deep and stubborn. But now, in a surprise twist, evolutionary science is making space for Adam and Eve,” S. Joshua Swamidass, an associate professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, told Fox News Digital. “It turns out that the theological questions are about genealogical ancestry, not genetics. In this paradigm shift, we are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell.”
In his book “The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry,” Swamidass argues that genetics and evolutionary theory do not conflict with the existence of Adam and Eve, universal ancestors of all humans whom Jesus died to save.Tyler O’Neil, “Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution” at Fox News
When we consider the huge difference between human beings and any other life form on the planet, it is more reasonable to assume that we had one pair of ancestors than that we had many.
10 Replies to “At Fox News: Adam and Eve are compatible with evolution”
They keep saying ” the scientific theory” as if that means something. It doesn’t and it isn’t. Easiest thing to demonstrate.
Like Nonlin.org, I don’t care if Adam and Eve are compatible with evolution, I care if evolution is compatible with science.
More specifically, I care if the claim from evolutionists that humanity evolved from some chimp-like ancestor is compatible with the empirical evidence or not. And the answer from the empirical evidence itself is a resounding, “NO! The empirical evidence is NOT compatible with the claim from evolutionists that humanity evolved from some chimp-like ancestor.”
First I will address the fossil record.
It is not as if we do not have more than sufficient reason to doubt the narratives that are offered by Darwinists when it comes to their claims about human evolution. The entire fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal, and with a heavy Darwinian bias as it is with human fossils, is VERY antagonistic to the entire Darwinian narrative.
From the Cambrian explosion onward, the entire fossil record simply refuses to conform to Darwinian expectations.
Charles Darwin himself acknowledged that the Cambrian explosion was a problem for his theory,
In fact the Cambrian explosion is now even more of a problem for Darwin’s theory than it was in Darwin’s day.
As Stephen Meyer noted in the following recent video at the 8:00 minute mark, “The Cambrian Explosion,, has become more explosive”
And what makes the Cambrian explosion so explosive, so ‘un-Darwinian, and so ‘upside-down’, to what Darwin predicted is the fact that it is phyla, (which are among the very highest taxonomic categories), that are found to be ‘explosively’ appearing in the Cambrian explosion first without any plausible precursors.
Moreover, “the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”
And as James Valentine explained, “The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright’s (1) term as ‘from the top down’.”
And as Chen Junyuan, one of the world’s leading researchers on the Cambria explosion, observed, “Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape”
Moreover, it is not only the Cambrian explosion where the fossil record is, basically, completely upside-down from what Darwin’s theory predicts.
The following study which “looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups” that appeared subsequent to Cambrian explosion, found that “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head.”
That the fossil record is severely discordant, even ‘upside-down’, to what Darwin’s theory predicts is not just some fringe belief that is held by the dreaded creationists, but is something that is readily, and widely, acknowledge by leading Paleontologists.
At the 16:49 minute mark of the following 2021 video, Dr. Gunter Bechly, who is a paleontologist himself, quotes many leading Darwinian paleontologists who also agree that the fossil record is severely discordant with Darwin’s theory.
Thus, given the fact that the entire fossil record, (when viewed in its entirety instead of just piecemeal), simply does not conform to Darwinian expectations, (and is even ‘upside-down’ to Darwinian expectations), then, obviously, we have more than sufficient reason to be VERY suspicious of the claims from Darwinists that the fossil record for human evolution is, supposedly, a ‘slam dunk’.
And indeed, when we zoom-in on the fossil evidence that purports to ‘unquestionably’ establish that humans evolved from some chimp-like ancestor, we find that things are not nearly as neat and tidy as Darwinists have falsely portrayed them to be to the general public.
Since teeth are, by far, the most complete fossil evidence that we can have for testing the Darwinian claims for human origins,,,,
Since teeth are, by far, the most complete fossil evidence that we can have for testing the Darwinian claims for human origins, I consider the following study to be a fairly compelling piece of empirical evidence that undermines the entire Darwinian ‘narrative’ for human evolution.
As well, John Sanford and Chris Rupe, who spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature, found that “It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.”
Likewise, Casey Luskin also did a deep dive into the peer-reviewed literature and found that, “multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin.”
Also see “Apes as Ancestors (2020)” by Jerry Bergman, Peter Line, and Jeffrey Tomkins, which also, via a deep dive into the peer reviewed literature itself, finds the fossil evidence for supposed human evolution to be far different than what Darwinists portray to the general public..
Likewise, Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig has collected a fairly impressive list of damning quotes from leading Darwinists themselves in regards to undermining the entire ‘narrative’ of human evolution that is told by Darwinists.
Even Ian Tattersall himself, emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History, (and who believes human evolution to be true and is certainly no ‘creationist in disguise’), stated that, “Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
Moreover, last May, via an article from the American Museum of Natural History, (again, which is certainly no creationist organization), it was stated that the human evolution ‘narrative’, (as it is portrayed to the general public by evolutionists) is “just a big mess — there’s no consensus whatsoever.”
Even leading Darwinists Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr themselves honestly admitted that the purported evidence for human evolution is, basically, just “elaborate storytelling” and “historical narrative”.
As should be obvious, having a senior research scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould, and Ernst Mayr all say that the evidence for human evolution boils down to, basically, “elaborate storytelling” and “historical narrative”, certainly does not bode well for any Darwinist who tries to claim that the fossil record for human evolution is beyond all dispute.
Thus in conclusion, the fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, from the Cambrian explosion onward, certainly does not support Darwinian evolution. Moreover, when the fossil evidence for the ‘narrative’ of human evolution is scrutinized in detail, we find that the purported fossil record for human evolution falls apart under scrutiny.
The ‘narrative’ of human evolution is apparently held together far more by imagination, i.e. ‘just so stories’, and the ‘artistic reconstruction’ of fossils, than it is by any real fossil evidence.
No less that Henry Gee, editor at Nature, makes, pretty much, the same exact point about the imaginary ‘artistic reconstruction’ of fossils that Darwinists offer to the general public in museums for how they imagine human evolution ought to have been like,
Moreover, to top it all off, there is also a systemic racism that is built into the imaginary ‘artistic reconstruction’ of fossils that Darwinists offer to the general public in museums,
Sobering to say the least!
Again B-77 thank you for your detailed (and yes sometimes too detailed ) responses…. always been picking out many of your links to help some of my liberal and atheistic / agnostic family members chew on things….. keep it up
Yes, thank you, Bornagain77.
My deep gratitude as well to BA77 for the additional information provided in his comments. The evidences presented are a great blessing.
My further deep gratitude to “News” (Ms. Denyse O’Leary) for the never ending stream of articles.
May God richly bless both of you!
Here is a brief discussion of the scientific method for everyone’s edification:
The claim of the peasant that he had been turned into a newt, if proven, would demonstrate macro evolution.