Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Christian Darwinists must now backtrack re Adam and Eve

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Why were they so determined that humanity could not have originated with a single pair? Casey Luskin, who has been reviewing In Quest of the Historical Adam by William Lane Craig notes,

In the previous installment of my review of William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam we saw that many evangelical intellectuals had accepted arguments that Adam and Eve could not have existed. These arguments, in particular the claim that human genetic diversity is too great to have been reduced to a single pair, were forcefully promoted by theistic evolutionists aka evolutionary creationists (TE/ECs) affiliated with BioLogos. Prominent among these critics was Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, who compared modern-day belief in Adam and Eve with adhering to the long-refuted geocentric model of the solar system. But the arguments turned out to be wrong, as even BioLogos and Venema now admit.

To his credit, William Lane Craig is among those evangelicals who have been willing to question arguments against a historical Adam and Eve. In his book he cites the work of Ann Gauger, Ola Hössjer, and Joshua Swamidass who performed analyses showing that humanity could have originated from a single pair at least 500,000 years ago. Gauger and Hössjer noted that Adam and Eve could have lived even more recently if additional evolutionary assumptions are questioned.

When I was reading the rhetoric used by evangelical elites who advocated abandoning a historical Adam and Eve, I was struck by how much of it seemed driven by fear — fear of looking foolish before the world because you challenged evolution and were shown to be wrong. As I discussed, the lesson from this story is that it should not be taboo for evangelicals to challenge evolutionary arguments. We need not live in fear that doing so is “anti-science” or will “bring disrepute on the Christian faith” or “shame upon the name of Jesus Christ” — as some evangelical elites have argued.

Casey Luskin, “Lessons Not Learned from the Evangelical Debate over Adam and Eve” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 23, 2021)

As he goes on the show, some in the Christian evangelical elite are just slow learners in these matters. Maybe being right, sticking with their tradition, would have been a bigger problem for them.


You may also wish to read: William Lane Craig on Adam and Eve as less intelligent than us Whatever else Craig’s view is, as Luskin notes, it is a far cry from the Scriptural traditional assumption that the unfallen Adam and Eve were our betters and that we have all deteriorated as a result of sin. Adopting Craig’s view is bound to have worldview consequences.

Casey Luskin: The mytho-history of Adam, Eve, and William Lane Craig. Long a defender of orthodoxy, Craig seems to want to prune the orthodoxies he is expected to defend. But the pruning process in which he is engaged can never really stop. The “sensible God” is most likely the one looking back at us from our medicine cabinet mirrors.

and

Why did the evangelical Christian world go nuts for Christian Darwinism a decade ago? Contra Trendy Christians: It makes sense that all humans would descend from a single couple. If you had to account for something like, say, human consciousness, isn’t it easier to address if we all belong to the same family of origin? Would you prefer to explain the development of human consciousness assuming that we come from multiple different ones? Darn good thing if someone can prove its true genetically.

Comments
As usual CD adds no value at all to anything. A literal waste of time of a post. As you probably know, A literal Adam And Eve is kind of important if you believe the Bible to be the word of God. And it undermines its credibility if it isn't. Using modern mutation rates, mitochondrial eve would be about 6000 years old... just saying. You can look it up. Genesis matters.zweston
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Do you honestly think that God gives one whit whether someone believes in a literal versus figurative Adam and Eve? While these "researchers" are at it, maybe they could figure out the angels dancing on a pin problem--I think the jury's still out on that one too. What a monumental waste of time...chuckdarwin
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
People cannot wrap their heads around evolution by means of intelligent design. Evolution by means of intelligent design can easily account for the observed genetic diversity amongst humans from a starting couple. It's the same as Dawkins' weasel program reaching its target in 43 generations.ET
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
As well, when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are taken into consideration, Dr. Sanford and company have now shown that the mathematics of populations genetics falsifies Fisher’s erroneous assumption that fitness must always increase:
Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down – December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/
Moreover, the mathematics of population genetics also proves that, if Darwinian evolution is assumed to be true, then ALL of our observations of reality would be illusory.
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601
The problem for Darwinian evolution in holding all our perceptions of reality are illusory is that it undermines the scientific method itself. Which is to say, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
In short, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, and thank God it isn't, it would undermine the scientific method itself. Moreover, empirical science itself could care less that Darwinists are forced to believe, via the mathematics of population genetics, that ALL of our perceptions of reality are illusory. Specifically, advances in quantum mechanics have now proven that our observations of reality are far more integral to reality, and therefore, far more reliable of reality than Darwinists are forced to believe because of the mathematics of population genetics. As the following article states, "Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it."
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics. Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization. They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
And as the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Moreover, and perhaps the 'coup de grace' against the claim that the mathematics of population genetics proves that humans evolved from chimp-like ancestor, mathematics itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence.
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? By M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
,,, And thus, since mathematics itself is profoundly immaterial in its foundational essence, then our (unique) ability to 'do mathematics', in and of itself, proves that man cannot possibly be a purely material being, as Darwinists hold, but that humans must possess and immaterial mind and/or soul in order for humans to even be able to 'do mathematics' in the first place. As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, and as far as our 'immaterial intellect' is concerned, "We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses."
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: "Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, A human being is material and immaterial — a composite being. We have material bodies, and our perceptions and imaginations and appetites are material powers, instantiated in our brains. But our intellect — our ability to think abstractly — is a wholly immaterial power, and our will that acts in accordance with our intellect is an immaterial power. Our intellect and our will depend on matter for their ordinary function, in the sense that they depend upon perception and imagination and memory, but they are not themselves made of matter. It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. It is obvious and manifest in our biological nature. - Michael Egnor https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
Thus in conclusion, far from the mathematics of population genetics proving that humans must have evolved from some chimp-like ancestor, the mathematics of population genetics, in rather dramatic fashion, actually falsifies the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution instead of validating them. Verse:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
bornagain77
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
At to "if additional evolutionary assumptions are questioned." By all means, let's question evolutionary assumptions! Venema, and other Theistic Darwinists, believes, or has believed in the past, that the Darwinian models in the mathematics of population genetics have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Adam and Eve could not possibly have existed as real historical figures. Yet, in so far as those Darwinian models in the mathematics of population genetics have been able to be compared to the empirical evidence itself, the empirical evidence itself disagrees with those Darwinian models of the mathematics of population genetics. For instance, the fossil record, when viewed in its entirety, and/or just for humans in particular, is VERY antagonistic to the Darwinian belief that humans gradually morphed into who they are from some chimp-like common ancestor.
November 2021 - Human evolution? - the evidence from the fossil record refutes Darwinian evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740239
The same can be said for the empirical evidence from genetics. i.e. the evidence from genetics, when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal as Darwinists are prone to do, actually falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor.
November 2021 - Human evolution? - the evidence from genetics, (as well as the mathematics of population genetics itself), when viewed in its entirety, instead of just piecemeal as Darwinists are prone to do, actually falsifies, instead of supports, the Darwinian claim that humans evolved some chimp-like ancestor. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245
Likewise, and perhaps the most devastating of all, the empirical evidence from, and for, human exceptionalism is simply completely devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists,
November 2021 - Human exceptionalism refutes Darwinian evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249
Moreover, and perhaps the most salient feature of all that needs to be explained in any account of human origins, the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution are simply at a complete loss to explain 'personhood', i.e. to explain why we should have 'subjective experience' of existing as individual human persons.
November 2021 - Moreover, after pointing out the fact that the Darwinian claims for human evolution are contradicted at every turn by the empirical evidence itself, it began to dawn on me, (as bad as the empirical evidence itself contradicts Darwinian claims for human evolution), that Darwinists have no earthly clue whatsoever as to how individual persons might come into being. Which is to say, although Darwinists offer endless ‘just-so stories’, and/or ‘narratives’, as to how humans, as a species, might have come into existence ‘gradually’, via the unguided processes of natural selection and random mutation, Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why I, as an individual person within the human species, should come into existence as a unique individual. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568
But as bad as the empirical evidence itself falsifies the Darwinian models in the mathematics of population genetics,
"Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Feynman - Richard Feynman Teaches you the Scientific Method
,,, but as bad as the empirical evidence itself falsifies those Darwinian models in the mathematics of population genetics, when scrutinized in detail, the mathematics itself within population genetics falsifies Darwinian evolution. Dr. John Sanford, whose credentials in genetics are impeccable, has analyzed the mathematics of population genetic inside and out, and, time and time again, Dr. Sanford and company have found that the mathematics of population genetics, (coupled with real time empirical evidence), falsifies Darwin’s theory rather than confirming it.
Dr. John Sanford – Links to Selected Papers https://www.logosresearchassociates.org/john-sanford John Sanford Gives Lecture At NIH On Mutations And Human Health – 2018 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/john-sanford-gives-lecture-at-nih-on-mutations-and-human-health/
For instance, natural selection itself, Charles Darwin main claim to scientific fame, has been thrown under the bus by the mathematics of population genetics,
The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17 John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/
bornagain77
November 29, 2021
November
11
Nov
29
29
2021
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
I feel as though this is the darkness before the dawn. Covid and government overreach has affected so many people. Our freedom has been threatened and our peace and comfort to live in our bubble has been popped. But, If we will but hold on, Gandalf and the riders of Rohan will show themselves on the horizon to wipe out the enemies. (and I don't mean in a violent way in this case). Civil war would be a terrible idea. Science doesn't have the greatest track record, particularly regarding darwinistic predictions.... "vestigial" organs? "Junk" DNA? I think people just get battle fatigued. The facts haven't changed recently in favor of Darwin...people are just wore down from being bludgeoned with the same thing over and over again. A bunch of theologians are capitulating at just the wrong time. We don't like being called fools, but that is what we are called to be... fools for Christ. It is folly to others, and the Bible said it would be. As with most things, it isn't that people have looked too much into something, it's that they haven't taken the time to deeply investigate it. How in the world do random mutations and natural selection "build" anything? How in the world did scales turn into feathers? Which came first... respiratory, nervous, circulatory systems? Again, I enjoy hearing WLC talk on the resurrection and philosophy, but I'm not a fan of his theology work.zweston
November 28, 2021
November
11
Nov
28
28
2021
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply