Darwinist Jason Rosenhouse on the original sin of Christian Darwinists

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 9, 2011

Christian Darwinism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “What does original sin mean in the light of modern science?” (Science Blogs, September 7, 2011), Jasen Rosenhouse comments,

One of the many problems modern science poses for Christianity is the question of how to understand original sin. The traditional teaching, which holds that Adam and Eve were the only humans on the planet when they were created on day six of Creation Week, that the ground was cursed and they were expelled from Eden as a result of a specific sin they committed, and that this corrupted state was in some way passed down to all future human beings, is no longer tenable. A variety of lines of evidence make it clear that the human population has always numbered in the thousands and certainly never dipped down to two. Moreover, evolution makes clear that humans arose through eons of natural selection. There was no moment of creation, and there was no state of primordial perfection for them to sully.

Just as Karl Giberson explained at Christianity Today (June 2011). Having accepted these many assumptions, Rosenhouse, a Madison U mathematician, does not suggest hollering ever more feebly for Jesus. Instead, he says,

Time to wrap this up. In science, it is fairly common to face the following situation: A theory works pretty well and explains a fair amount of data. But then some anomalies arise. Do we need to discard the theory completely, or is it just a matter of fine-tuning a few details? That is not the case with original sin. It is not as though we used to have really good reasons for thinking it is a valid and useful notion, but then modern science came along to provide a few distressing anomalies. Actually all we ever had was an ancient, Biblical account that told a pretty clear story about human sinfulness and its affect on the world. There was never any particular reason to think that story was true, and science now shows it to be completely false. But instead of throwing the idea of original sin straight in the garbage where it belongs, a lot of really smart people tie themselves into knots summoning forth strained reinterpretations of the doctrine. It is beyond comprehension to me that anyone could think this is a valuable use of time, or that our knowledge or understanding of the human condition are advanced, in even the slightest way, by such investigations.

Thats an immersion in real Darwin thought, not the fake Christian kind.

See also: Dennis Venema gets ID wrong again

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

NormO states:
It’s a gradual change over millions of years with different populations of apes splitting and diverging over time, some acquiring more human-like characteristics, some retaining more ape-like ones. In hindsight it’s very difficult to look back at this bushy tree of primates and identify the branch that leads directly to humans or even the point that we can say where “fully human” begins.
That's the Darwinian fairy tale that is repeated ad naseum, as if it had any merit, Yet, as is now commonly well known, the overall fossil record is anything but gradual, as NormO just portrayed. In fact here is a quote from a recent article that in no way misrepresents the actual state of the evidence:
When Science Is a Matter of Political Faith Excerpt: 'prominent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that the fossil record argues against gradual, Darwinian evolution, he came up with “punctuated equilibrium.” That is, he speculated that intermediate species don’t show up in fossils because of sudden, unexplained leaps into completely new species. As scientists unlock the secrets of the cell, it’s clearer every day that those leaps would involve millions of changes all at once, for no apparent reason. http://townhall.com/columnists/robertknight/2011/09/08/when_science_is_a_matter_of_political_faith/page/full/
And NormO, Darwinists always say something along the lines that a species/kind has found its niche, after its suddne appearance in the fossil record, thus that is the reason it stays basically unchanged for millions of years in the fossil record. Yet this post hoc 'excuse' is absurd. Why should we not see dramatically variation as Natural Selection is making its undirected search for new successful variations??? Even Darwin himself wrote something to the effect that Natural Selection would forever be searching (scouring?) through new variations looking for successful ones. But alas the fossil record is the antithesis of this foundational assumption of Darwinism and overwhelmingly characterized by sudden appearance and overall stasis.
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.” http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are: a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today. b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown. c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish. d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown. e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record. f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found. g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown. h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown. i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown. j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds. The following evolution friendly article was quite honest about the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution to account for novel forms appearing in the fossil record: Saltational Evolution: Hopeful Monsters are Here to Stay - Günter Theißen - 2009 "While we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin's undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/nsf_spends_almost_2_million_of038581.html Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg
If Darwinists were actually interested in the truth about why species/kinds demonstrate extreme conservation of form in the fossil record, instead of just making excuses for Darwinism, they would find that there are very good reasons why this stability of form is so. Here is one of the primary reasons:
John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found in the genome: Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQ DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4614519 K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/k%C2%B4necting-the-dots-modeling-functional-integration-in-biological-systems/ further note: Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - Paul Nelson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5548184/
bornagain77_{September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

ciphertext: Why wouldn’t there be a progenitor “Father” and “Mother” pair of humans? Because populations evolve together due to interbreeding (i.e. mutations are spread throughout the entire interbreeding population). Is Jason suggesting with that statement that “thousands” of humans evolved from a prior species in such a fashion that those same “thousands” were identifiable as humans at the same moment in time? Yes exactly. However there wouldn't be some magical point in time where you could say 'aha, now we have humans!'. It's a gradual change over millions of years with different populations of apes splitting and diverging over time, some acquiring more human-like characteristics, some retaining more ape-like ones. In hindsight it's very difficult to look back at this bushy tree of primates and identify the branch that leads directly to humans or even the point that we can say where "fully human" begins.NormO_{September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

RE: Original post
A variety of lines of evidence make it clear that the human population has always numbered in the thousands and certainly never dipped down to two.
This seems to me to be a bit counter intuitive. Why wouldn't there be a progenitor "Father" and "Mother" pair of humans? Is Jason suggesting with that statement that "thousands" of humans evolved from a prior species in such a fashion that those same "thousands" were identifiable as humans at the same moment in time? Certainly, he is entitled to his own opinion on the matter, but I don't see how science has either proven or dis-proven the concept of original sin. Unless with "science" he is referring to the study of history, in which case, I don't think he has read enough about the subject.ciphertext_{September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Here is a article to go with the video: Human DNA points to historical Adam and Eve The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! - Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos - Dr. Robert Carter http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologosbornagain77_{September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Of related note: CMI has finally uploaded some videos from its 'Super Creation conference'. Of particular note is the video entitled 'Are All From Adam and Eve?' at the bottom of the list of videos,,,, Are All From Adam and Eve http://www.biblediscoverytv.com/ (Of note; though a YEC organization, I find the molecular biology of CMI to be top notch)bornagain77_{September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Well if Jason believes sin is merely an illusion forced upon him by a ancient religious text, I suggest that he perform a little experiment. I suggest that he try to live morally 'perfect' i.e. to live without 'sinning'. Can he go a month without telling a single lie? Shoot can he go even one day without telling a lie??? Can he not lust for a month??? Can he not hate for a month??? etc.. etc.. etc.. ,,, Benjamin Franklin tried such a modest experiment at trying to live a 'perfect', sin-free, life and found:
Review of the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin Excerpt: In the book, Franklin talks about his 13 virtues, which he tried to integrate into his life - temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity and humility. He chose a virtue and focused on it for the entire week. Benjamin Franklin wanted to be morally perfect, but found perfection to be elusive. He realized that being perfect wasn't possible, but he was glad he tried because he was a happier and better man after trying. http://ezinearticles.com/?Review-of-the-Autobiography-of-Benjamin-Franklin&id=3781959
As to these assumptions of Rosenhouse,,,
A variety of lines of evidence make it clear that the human population has always numbered in the thousands and certainly never dipped down to two,,
,,,the fact is that even papers from evolutionary biologists themselves repeatedly speak of a 'genetic Adam' and a 'mitochondrial Eve';
Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic Evidence For Adam and Eve - Dr. Fazale Rana http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4284482/
Thus it is just plain misleading for Jason to state that the human population 'never dipped to two' for not only was he not there, but the scientific literature is certainly not clear on the matter either;,,, further notes:
Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011 Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content," showing "extraordinary divergence" where "wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.",,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008 Excerpt:,,, Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080113161406.htm Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references http://www.vimeo.com/17135166 Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model. http://www.discovery.org/a/9461 etc... etc... etc..
But alas, we have it on Jason's authority that there is no question of the Darwinian claim that we 'randomly' evolved from some ape-like creature, to which he adds his belief that original sin is an illusion,,, but what are we to believe??? Jason's blind faith in Darwinism??? wrought by a very superficial scrutiny of historical narrative??? or are we to believe the crushing observational evidence against Darwinism, that we actually have in hand, that was wrought by rigorous analysis???bornagain77_{September 9, 2011
September
09
Sep
9
09
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply