Slashdot Mirror
Evangelical Scientists Debate Creation Story
Hugh Pickens writes "Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe humanity descend from Adam and Eve, but NPR reports that evangelical scientists are now saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account and that it is unlikely that we all descended from a single pair of humans. 'That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years so not likely at all,' says biologist Dennis Venema, a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. 'You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.' Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century and say it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence."
evangelical scientists are now saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account and that it is unlikely that we all descended from a single pair of humans.
Science and religion rarely mess when comparing facts. I guess this is news because it's evangelical scientists? They're still pushing creationism, aren't they?
Where does the bible say is Kain's wife from?
The Land of Nod (Genesis 4:16) It also can be interpreted as nomadic peoples (at least that's what my Catholic school upbringing taught me).
My work here is dung.
When I had religion in primary school they had basically told us that the Genesis was to be taken metaphorically and not literally, in secondary school we had a light analysis of certain Jewish cultural things in that story (like 7 days, and a garden being paradise for a tribe which lived in the desert...)
I didn't think people still believed it LITERALLY, this is news to me.
Why even bother with a theology you must admit contains errors? Which part of the Bible contains the facts, and which doesn't? And if you don't know, then what's the point of your faith? Only when it apparently contradicts science you can reject a doctrine, or what is the verification principle at play here for these "Christian" "scientists".
Notice I'm not coming out in favor or against either science or religion here. I'm pointing out, I think these people are nothing more than deep-cover atheists. Their entire movement hinges on reconciling contradictions, by discarding the one assertion (religious dogma) in favor of the other (science), and then claiming the religion saved - which is at worst, a willful deceit, at best (I'm being charitable here) a collosal failure in the history of all rationality, and casts their ability to do logical inquiry into doubt. Neither alternative makes me willing to trust them.
>it is unlikely that we all descended from a single pair of humans.
I thought that Lucy/African Eve was the one that we're all descended from. Or was that a single pair of humans ... Lucy and multiple males.
Or if we don't all descend from a common source (the rest having died or being killed off), does that give weight to racist arguments that blacks and whites are separate species?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
So, if the Church and 4 out of 10 Americans believe the Biblical version of creation, why are they so dead set against incest?
It's pretty funny, actually. They take their smartest creationists, put them in a room together, and tell them to think about it for a while. The result? "Yeah, this can't actually be true."
What, exactly, did they think would happen?
If there was no fall, there was no need for redemption. If there was no need for redemption, there was no need for a savior. And without a savior, there is no Christianity.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence."
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's any meaning in this story it's allegorical. It's just a framework which was contrived to carry an idea.
The story goes that man is created in a perfectly ordered universe, but has no active role except to assign labels to things. Adam and Eve decide to seize the means to take on decisions of greater consequence. As a result, they're cast out into the place where shit gets real and things have real consequences. If you want to make real decisions then those decisions have to have real consequences. Having free will means living in a world where you at times when you have to deal with suffering. That's the whole point of the story.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
And any evangelical could have told them, "Why would you listen to someone who's going to burn in Hell for not believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, anyway. Genesis is Science. (Go Rick Perry!)"
See, when you have one religious believer arguing with another, it's like a retard fight. There are never winners, only losers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The really funny part is that the Bible itself says that it uses allegory! (Trivia question! Name a word which occurs exactly once in the entire Bible!)
http://scripturetext.com/galatians/4-24.htm
Which things are an allegory...
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Cain married his sister, and they had children together before "this absolutely astronomical mutation rate" had had a chance to occur. There were two mutation spurts in Genesis: one after the fall of man and one after the flood. Only about a thousand years after the flood did Jehovah God make laws against incest.
Welcome to the 19th Century.
Sincerely,
Science
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
One of the biggest problems with denying the Adam and Eve story is that it negates the fundamental reason Jesus appeared - that is, to take on "our sins" created by the fall. Denying Adam and Eve pretty much throws a wrench into the whole works of Christianity, so this is bigger than just admitting that it is allegory or metaphor...
Here's a bad example: Westboro Baptist Church. The Phelps cult sure as heck aren't baptists, despite the name on the sign. They have also been officially disowned by all legitimate church associations, including the 'Primitive Baptist' movement they claim to be a part of, and other Baptist associations.
Yet still I get asked about them in regards to my faith.
Disclaimer: I am an 'evangelical' who volunteers at a nominally Southern Baptist college church in the Northeast USA. I'm an old-world creationist, which means I believe God created the universe way back a long time ago, and that he wasn't absent in our evolution.
"The land of Nod." (Genesis 4:16)
And I agree. Most people fail to realize several important contextual clues in the biblical genesis stories.
1) genesis 1:26 implies multiple humans, simultaneously. Not just adam.
2) genesis 2:5 says specifically that god had not yet created FARMING humans. (No man to "till the earth"). Hunter gatherers could well exist, but are not mentioned, since they are not the focus of the story. This is reiterated in genesis 3:22.
I would say that the genesis story does what many ancient histories/verbal accounts/stories of myth do, which is to focus on the people that are deemed important to the story and omit any extra content. For instance, the odd lack of female characters in the geneology section, except where there are extraordinay circumstances. The omissions do not mean that males greatly outnumbered females, it means the recorders of the tradition valued males more highly, and considered the women's names superfluous. By the same vein, mentioning nomadic hunters outside "eden" would be superfluous except where they come into the narrative though interacting with a major character, such as Cain. (In the land of Nod.) Keeping the story simple is essential for these early traditions because written language has not been invented yet. (Agriculture predated written language by several thousand years. As such any such traditions or origin stories would HAVE to be oral ones. That is why there are omissions for the sake of simplicity.)
Taking such a literal approach as to imply adam was the only human at the time is absurd both from the perspective of the narrative itself and from any biological perspective as well. As such this article only should upset dyed in the wool literalists and super fundies.
6-10 thousand years is a pretty trivial amount of time in evolutionary terms. There is simply no way that 2 people could produce in 10k years the diversity we actually see in actual living humans unless they mutated so fast that practically every single person would be born with fatal mutations.
Actually the evidence is much like you suggest in terms of there being one unique woman, Mitochondrial Eve, that falls in the female line of every living human being. There is probably likewise some point at which you can find a single male line in every living human lineage, but they didn't happen at the same time, weren't a couple, and nobody ever living at any one given instant was ever descended from those two people. Beyond that the timelines are MUCH longer. The last bottleneck was at least 50k years ago and there was probably another at 200ky.
The upshot is certainly that human lineages are vastly older than most bible scholars seem to think, at least those who are at all literalistic.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
The Christian creation story is an allegory for the evolution of free will.
Humans evolved in their present form hundreds of thousands of years ago. But for some reason civilization didn't take off until about 7,000 years ago, give or take. The reason civilization could not take hold everything to do with man's ability to live in a herd.
We already know that humans can't deal well with herds of more than 150 people. For settlements to grow past 150 people meant that individuals would regularly come in contact with other humans that they did not directly know. For any stable settlement to occur, past 150 people, there had to be some new advancement in herd management, or as we call it: religion.
At some point, or possibly in multiple places, humans developed this idea of god. God was the invention that allowed humans to live in a herd of more than 150 because it created an immortal, infinitely powerful alpha that could not be toppled via violent means. We hacked our own evolution. By trusting in a god, instead of a human leader, herds could grow past the 150 person limit. By trusting in a god rules could be handed down in his name and people would follow them (for the most part) without having to be beaten into submission. These rules, like don't sleep with your neighbors wife and don't kill each other, laid the foundation for larger and larger settlements.
This advancement did not happen everywhere at once. It was a gradual transition. "Civilized" settlements would often come across humans who had not made this leap. To to the civilized, these rogue wanderers would seem like animals. They would be controlled by the desire to eat and rape and probably had no qualms about violence. Look at herds of baboons to see how aggressively they handle their herds.
Free will, as we know it, is the idea that we are not controlled by our basic animal impulses. Those who lived in religious settlements could control their desire to rape and make decisions for the good of the herd. Those who lived outside those societies were still animals with no free will -- they lived only to eat and rape.
The creation story is an allegory for this development. We used to live as animals (Garden of Eden) and were happy (though full of rape). Ignorance is bliss. Then, at some point we discovered free will (Tree of Knowledge). Forever after we would be cursed with the knowledge of our own death, but able to live with one another.
I'll admit, it does seem remote, especially if you're dealing with time periods of 50,000 years or so. What do you think the likelihood of this event occurring is? A million in one chance, per year? One in a billion per century?
Let's go even further, way, way out there. What if it was one in 10^24 per 13 billion years?
Just so we're clear on the numbers we're using, that's 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance per 13,000,000,000 years.
This is really, really, really, really, really unlikely. However, statistically speaking, this means that there are... dum dum dum...! 9 planets in the entire universe where this has occurred so far. Earth is one of them. :)
This, of course, assumes the lifespan of the universe to be 13 billion years and the number of stars in the observable universe to be 10^24. Which, based on our current scientific estimates, is about right give or take (see sources). It could be off by, say, five or six planets either way -- although we're only dealing with the *observable* universe, so there could be many many many many many more.
The scientific world is an amazing, wonderful, powerful, inspirational thing that is just so incredible in its majesty and beauty that it seems so very belittling to claim that there's a divine hand behind this truly unique and awesome thing called existence.
Bonus question: If the universe created God, what created God? If X, why can't X apply to "the universe at whole"? If NOT X, then why can't the universe be held to the same standard? "It always was, and always will be..."
Further reading:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Improbable_things_happen
http://www.symphonyofscience.com/
Sources:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Do you believe in everything for which there is no evidence? If not, how do you decide?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It's been 15 years, and still most people (including most Christians) have not picked up on the fact that the Catholic church concluded this long ago.
In a papal statement on the subject of evolution, dated Oct. 22nd 1996, pope John Paul II stated that "truth cannot contradict truth", and therefore the Genesis story of the Bible needed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally.
For those who are interested, the message is available here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp961022.htm
How is it that Christian people (Catholics in particular; the pope is supposed to be your earthly representative for God) just seem to "forget" this ever happened?
I, er, disagree. Strongly. There are big differences between 'believing in something based on evidence', 'believing in something without evidence', and 'believing in something despite evidence'.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Well, duh, haven't you read your source materials? After Caine was cursed with vampirism and driven out, he met Lilith, Adam's first wife, the Dark Mother, in the land of Nod, who helped him awaken his vampyric powers. Unfortunately, they did have a bit of a falling out and he staked her before moving on to sire the first antediluvians. And the rest you can find in the Book Of Nod.
What? It says so in the holy White Wolf scriptures.
Oh, wait, you were meaning the OTHER fairy tale? My bad ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The thing is, the Bible says that the most recent common male ancestor (Noah) was significantly closer in time than the most recent common female ancestor (Eve). So, the Biblical account, also, says that the most recent common male ancestor was not the husband/mate of the most recent common female ancestor.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Genesis 7:21-23 states:
So it doesn't matter how many descendants Adam and Eve had -- after the Flood, humanity was (canonically, if you take Genesis literally) down to a population of 8. Those eight were Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' wives according to Genesis 7:13:
Could you get as much genetic diversity starting with 8 people (five of whom, at least, were related by blood) in a short period of time?
One day, you'll be able to recognize, and accept, that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
Not so. You are confusing evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God (the "religious experience", for example), but it is not compelling evidence, and the scientifically minded favour other explanations of it. It does the scientific position no favours to misrepresent it, because the religious will see that what you are presenting is obviously false and think from that that the scientific position is obviously false.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Perhaps, but the whole flood story becomes vastly suspect in any case since it is clearly impossible that there was a worldwide flood within recent prehistory, nor can anything even close to a literal interpretation of the Noah story make any sense. Clearly it is at best an allegorical tale and/or cultural myth. Once we accept that any given Bible story is clearly not literally an accurate attestation of fact then there's no particular reason to expect any other part to be particularly either.
I'd say that tales like Genesis are actually pretty good summaries of the common sense reasoning of the day. People are seen to be related and families and people's increase in number over time, so logically you would expect to be able to go backwards to a time when there were "only 2 people", and likewise to some sort of time when the world began in some fashion or other.
In other words I just don't think there's much point in debating the actual scientific relevance of Bible stories. They're pre-scientific legends, informed by some common sense reasoning but no actual facts. They may happen to match with scientific findings in some random cases, but at best that shows that some science is also common sense, and at worst indicates that no matter what fantastical tall tale you tell sometimes you get lucky and the truth bears some (albeit faint) resemblance to your story.
In any case, most Christians throughout history have not held that there was any great specific literal accuracy to the Bible. Even ancient late classical Christian theologians pretty much took it all metaphorically, and so have Jews and Moslems going all the way back to ancient times. Other posters are right about the super literalism prevalent in some places in the US today being a recent phenomenon. I dunno what it is about the US, but we sure do breed a unique form of fanatics.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
So, they'll make it to heaven with you? Even though they don't believe Jesus Christ is Lord?
That's a prevailing belief among many Christians.. The explanation I was given was that the Jews are grandfathered in under the old contract, so long as they kill and burn a lamb every now and again. But anyone just joining has to go under the new contract, which involves swearing fealty to Jesus and taking a bath.
don't know the difference between real geology, flood geology, or pancake geology (a really interesting new science I'm developing for optimizing syrup distribution). They're rich because they're daddy was rich, and his daddy was rich, and if you go back far enough because one of the daddy's was really, really big.
As for the geologists themselves, well studies show the more education you have the less likely you are to believe this nonsense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And here we have the classic Creationist line of thought. In one sentence you basically create humans as a special class but then create birds as an incredibly broader class. If birds are some sort of base kind, then how can you not lump in the Great Apes, heck all primates into the human class?
The fact is that no population of humans has been separated from the wider body of humanity for more than about 15,000 years. Speciation happens where you have two related populations that fall out of reproductive sync. If two populations never have a cessation of gene flow, then, while they're still evolving, they're still evolving together (with the exception of polyploidism, of course, which can produce a new species in a single generation).
I have no idea what this "plain old human" is supposed to be. Even modern humans have changed morphologically and genetically since they first arrived around 100,000 years ago.
You need to put down those moronic Creationist pamphlets and actually pick up a book on human evolution.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That is normal mental condition, the expected result is generally called "hope".
Oh, I think it is clear enough, to anyone who is actually willing to engage their brain at all. There are what, 2-3 million species known to inhabit the Earth right now, with vast diversity. Even a few minutes of thought clearly shows it would be impossible for a boat to hold all possible animals, and if the entire Earth flooded to the top of every mountain then equally clearly nothing else survived. The story couldn't have made literal sense even to the people who wrote it. Even if you accept the basic story of Genesis whole cloth you can't match the story to the most basic plain facts you can see around you if you spend 5 minutes looking.
Thus we have to conclude that Biblical literalists LITERALLY cannot reason, even with basic facts accessible to every person.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
I thought this was all explained by the Tower of Babel story. God got mad at mans' hubris and split us up into a bunch of different races, speaking different languages, all with a wave of his magic wand. That was a one-time instantaneous mutation that didn't require an ongoing high rate.
Of course it's ridiculous poppycock, but that's not the point. If you accept that god is omnipotent and omniscient then you can explain away any inconsistencies easily. There's little point in trying to convince the deluded.
I prefer not to think of myself as just meat. I prefer to live in a world where suffering has a purpose and it is noble to give up one's life.
The problem you run into is that, for someone who doesn't believe in a soul, the way the world works doesn't care what you prefer. I must say that I'd prefer these things, too, but that doesn't necessarily make them so.
And maybe faith is important.
This can still be true even though your statement about true Christianity isn't.
Virg
A god that demanded the murder of infants, gives him...hope? That's a normal mental condition?
Einstein was not an atheist either however - it's the concept of a "personal" God he disagreed with, not the possibility of divine creation in general. I think this agnostic view is the most intellectually honest. ..at least until science proves everything there is to ever know about the universe, which is unlikely, much as I respect it.
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Hubertus, Prince of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
"Obviously false"?
Good enough for normal life. Not good enough for science. The heliocentric model of the solar system was "obviously false", until it turned out to be true.
Religious experiences are caused by unusual brain states, not communing with God.
That is your belief. It is not the belief of the religious.
You can very reliably induce the same state of mind many claim to associate with "feeling god" by various drugs, and oxygen deprivation.
That's better. Now you are moving on from "there is no evidence" to "here is a reason I prefer an alternative explanation of the evidence". (It's not a particularly strong reason, though: something similar can be said of the state of mind many claim to associate with "feeling hunger". Any logician can tell you that the move from "x can be caused by y to "x cannot be caused by z because z is not y" is questionable.)
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?