Reconciling Humani Generis with the human genetic data showing that there never were just two first parents

[Allyson]

At this point, I am starting to suspect this woman is baiting. It doesn’t matter what you tell her, I get the feeling she’s just here to impose her own views and brand us as “creationists” even though no one here has denied evolution…

I have equated ID with creationism in explaining why I reject it. I am not branding any person as a creationist. That said, there has been a fair amount of evolution denial on the thread, although not so much early on.

 

[buffalo]

Saved it to watch

Cool. Be advised the presenter is a creationist, but the data is most interesting.

 

[Allyson]

Cool. Be advised the presenter is a creationist, but the data is most interesting.

Haha, I figured from the opening frame. Watching now

 

[Allyson]

The point is that it does not take us millions of years. Technological revolutions happen within decades, or faster.

 

[Allyson]

I found this video very interesting. I was wondering to what extent you agree with his insistence on biblical literalism. The Catholic position, which is laid out in HG, is that a literal interpretation is not required. It is not forbidden either, but it is the minority view. When I speak of creationist, I am speaking of taking a literal view (short or long earth). It is not a viewpoint that is required.

I do not think that events like the flood or the Tower of Babel literally happened as in the Bible. I do not rule out that it could be a story of a real regional flood, but not a flood that wiped out the whole world. I also think there was a real Tower of Babel, but the rest of that story is myth. So, trying to twist and twerk the genetic data to fit the biblical narrative seems unnecessary to me.

X-chromosome deactivation was interesting to bring up, but that is not an exclusively human trait, so it is unclear to me how that proves Eve came from Adam. It seemed that he was suggesting that was the “rib.” If so, that is where all females of every species come from???

I am also wondering what you think the strengths and weaknesses are in his presentation. There is no need to discuss something we might already agree on.

And finally, what is your timeline for the age of the earth? If I am thinking in terms of billions of years, and you are not, we are talking from very different starting points. We have a far more fundamental starting point than discussing the doctrine of Original Sin in light of genetic data.

 

[Allyson]

I started watching the video, but haven’t finished. I’d like to comment on your point about the flood – considering that there is a flood myth in nearly all world mythologies (e.g., Gilgamesh, Nuh, etc.), I don’t think we should dismiss it as merely a “regional flood.” Don’t you think it’s a bit condescending? I am not saying world mythologies are reliable sources, but it cannot be a coincidence that there is a variation of the flood myth in every culture – some of these cultures were not even in contact with one another.

No, it is not condescending. There is no geological evidence for a world wide flood. There is however, geological evidence for regional floods in different times and places. Some of those places do have myths related to a regional flood. The flood stories across the world are different, and not all cultures have flood stories. However, the stories that are similar to Genesis are all Mesopotamian, like the Epic of Gilgamesh.

You might enjoy this discussion:

Also, if you want people to share their thoughts on the weaknesses and strengths of the video, there is no need to dictate what they should or should not share. I think there is a need to discuss something you agree on with somebody else. You might be surprised when another person’s perspective–even if you’re on the same side–might help to shed light on yours.

I am not dictating anything of the sort. I merely pointed out that I don’t see a need to discuss and issue as an issue if it isn’t an issue. In other words, I do not assume that the person sharing a resource 100% agrees with everything contained. That is not an unreasonable position to take.

I will watch the video and share my thoughts and if we both agree, so what? Get over it. Though I am sure we won’t agree on everything.

I am not the one having trouble getting over the opinions of strangers. I am just having a rigorous discussion. Relax!

 

[Allyson]

I am thinking that maybe some of these cultures considered it a worldwide flood because their knowledge of the land area of the world extended no farther than their own geographical boundaries. In other words, their world was not so big as it is today, figuratively speaking.

Definitely. When you experience something catastrophic that destroys everything you know, it can definitely seem that your literal world was wiped out.

The video is really good. He steers a good middle road and provides some really interesting examples of what flood geography looks like.

I got my BA in 2002, but I have been reading up recently on the research from the last decade or so. Things like the book by David Reich, which I linked in the OP. The whole field of ancient genomics was only a crazy idea that not everyone thought was possible when I was in college. I have not done any formal research on genetics, but I did do an independent study in grad school on what the Fathers of the Church wrote on Creation. I do not think I have the hardcopy anymore, but now that I am thinking about it, I should see if I can recover the file from my external hard-drive. Basically, all of the research I am catching up on is from after I finished both degrees.

I rejected ID in the form that tries to undermine modern evolutionary theory because it is not scientific and frequently misrepresents what the evolutionary process actually is. It gets muddy, because there are probably ID oriented people who do not go nearly as far as the most radical creationists. Believing God created the world does not make a person a creationist. A creationist is someone whose views on the subject of evolution agrees with those of groups like The Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis: it is an unfounded fear that the basis for their religious belief is undermined if the world was not created 6000 years ago or that man evolved from prior life forms.

Michael Behe works with The Discovery Institute, and was the author of one of the books I initially found compelling (and did so for quite a while). He is a Catholic, and interestingly enough, when he testified at the Dover trial for the defense, another Catholic Scientist, whose book I also read at the same time, testified for the plaintiffs. In short, I agree with Kenneth Miller (the other scientist), that irreducible complexity was not and is not supported by the best science we have. Coming to realize that ID was being used as a code word for getting around the Establishment Clause finalized my reasons for rejecting the creationist fueled ID movement.

 

[buffalo]

Coming to realize that ID was being used as a code word for getting around the Establishment Clause finalized my reasons for rejecting the creationist fueled ID movement.

The materialists were very clever in how they went about this You are evidence their ploy has worked

 

[Allyson]

The materialists were very clever in how they went about this You are evidence their ploy has worked

What does materialism have to do with my understanding of the evidence in a legal case?

 

[buffalo]

What does materialism have to do with my understanding of the evidence in a legal case?

Your understanding puts you in the position of denying design exists and is able to be studied by science. Yet, look around and see all the plain evidence design does exist.

 

[Allyson]

Your understanding puts you in the position of denying design exists and is able to be studied by science. Yet, look around and see all the plain evidence design does exist.

Making design a subject that can be studied by science potentially opens up all claims about the supernatural to analysis by the scientific method. This makes ID both bad science and bad theology. It is bad science because science is not in the business of making claims about supernatural causes; it is bad theology because you are making the God proposition a falsifiable one.

Any individual is free to see and find inspiration for faith in the appearance of design in the world, but if the claim is that nothing but God’s direct and immediate action can explain the present state of things in nature. By this I mean any claim that God did not merely set the laws of nature in motion - that he did infact create beings as they are out of whole cloth without modification - is setting out a falsifiable proposition. This makes God a subject for scientific study.

In a 2005 NPR interview, Kenneth Miller said:

That’s a good question, because you’re essentially asking me whether or not the sort of conception I have of God is one who sort of rigs the game or bribes the referees to make evolution come out in a particular way. I have to tell you that I think evolution is both an entirely independent process and a working out of the will of the creator.

I think this is the most balanced view to take, and it is wholly in line with HG.

 

[EndTimes]

Racism is prejudice based on skin color.

Yes… Those who peddle EuroCentrism as being bad ARE RACISM - Promoters.

They constantly dump upon WHITES!

_

 

[EndTimes]

Your understanding puts you in the position of denying design exists and is able to be studied by science. Yet, look around and see all the plain evidence design does exist.

Yes…

The OverAll MultiFaceted Design of Humans - is self-evidently exquisite to the eye of intelligence.

And. There is Solid Science presented by Proponents if “ID” … in turn - (never acknowledged)
which then further argues that Intelligence must Follow the Yes… Design

The Odds of even a Cell coming to form via lucky random materialist explanations only
is known to be nigh onto impossible - … which rules out CHANCE in Abiogenesis

Which gives birth to INFINITE UNIVERSE THEORIES - as an attempt to out-Flank chance

 

[Allyson]

Yes… Those who peddle EuroCentrism as being bad ARE RACISM - Promoters.

They constantly dump upon WHITES!

_

This has nothing to do with my OP or the discussion here. It also has nothing to to with that one comment where I was suggesting that scientists (who are human) have a tendency to think of other human subspecies as being less human/lacking a true human culture. I said that it was a kind of ethnocentrism. I think we can drop this line of the discussion.

If you want to see what I actually said. Go here:

Thank you! This article looks quite useful.

And. There is Solid Science presented by Proponents if “ID” … in turn - (never acknowledged)
which then further argues that Intelligence must Follow the Yes… Design

See my response to @buffalo. You are running into the same problem.

Making design a subject that can be studied by science potentially opens up all claims about the supernatural to analysis by the scientific method. This makes ID both bad science and bad theology. It is bad science because science is not in the business of making claims about supernatural causes; it is bad theology because you are making the God proposition a falsifiable one.

Any individual is free to see and find inspiration for faith in the appearance of design in the world, but if the claim is that nothing but God’s direct and immediate action can explain the present state of things in nature. By this I mean any claim that God did not merely set the laws of nature in motion - that he did infact create beings as they are out of whole cloth without modification - is setting out a falsifiable proposition. This makes God a subject for scientific study.

 

[buffalo]

Making design a subject that can be studied by science potentially opens up all claims about the supernatural to analysis by the scientific method.

In this case SETI should no longer be funded. Do you agree?

Is your claim now all design is supernatural? I do not understand your response.

 

[Allyson]

In this case SETI should no longer be funded. Do you agree?

No. You just shifted from apples to oranges. SETI is looking for signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos - i.e. naturally occurring life. It is NOT looking for God.

ID-creationism however, is claiming that design is evidence for God.

Is your claim now all design is supernatural? I do not understand your response.

It is the claim of ID-creationism that the appearance of design in nature is directly due to God. I can see why you shift uncomfortably here. YES, if you agree with ID-creationism that all design in nature is directly designed by God, then all design in nature is evidence of the supernatural, and that claim is falsifiable.

 

[buffalo]

No. You just shifted from apples to oranges. SETI is looking for signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the cosmos - i.e. naturally occurring life. It is NOT looking for God.

ID-creationism however, is claiming that design is evidence for God.

Ahhh I see, you still think any scientific search for design should be forbidden because of the philosophical implications. Even Dawkins wold disagree with you. He admits the possibility that the earth was seeded by ET’s.

To clarify:

ID the science simply looks for evidence of design
ID the philosophy tries to identify the designer.

Do not conflate the two.

Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI). An object or event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.

 

[buffalo]

It is the claim of ID-creationism that the appearance of design in nature is directly due to God. I can see why you shift uncomfortably here. YES, if you agree with ID-creationism that all design in nature is directly designed by God, then all design in nature is evidence of the supernatural, and that claim is falsifiable.

Let us assume for a moment the complete universe is designed.

We are looking for very strong signals that we can detect against the backgound design signals.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (is this evidence of design and how do we know)

 

[LayApologist]

I was a premed major prior to going to law school and earned dual degrees in Life Science and Physical, which are both interdisciplinary science degrees. The interrelationship between science and the faith has always fascinated me and is something I’ve spent considerable time studying. I’ll dive into the specifics later and I apologize if this has already been discussed as I have not read the entire thread, but there is one point that I believe needs to be emphasized.

¶ 159 of the Catechism states: Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

During all the years I’ve spend studying this issue I’ve become increasingly convinced of the truth of this paragraph. What we often overlook is that science is a journey, not a destination. The strength of science is its ability to disprove itself in the quest for truth. What science “knows” today it often disproves or modifies tomorrow. Just because the best currently available scientific knowledge or research tell us something doesn’t mean that it won’t get turned on it’s head by a knew discovery.

The point is, science and the faith cannot conflict because truth cannot contradict truth. In those times when we perceive a conflict, as in the case of your question, that tells us that we lack understanding or knowledge in one of those areas. Perhaps science has not yet discovered the information that will reconcile them, or perhaps there is some information or interpretation about one of them that is available but that we have not yet learned.

I have noticed a huge rise in both the general population and in many areas of the scientific community in the supposition that science is “settled” and that current scientific knowledge is Unchangeable Truth almost on the level of dogma. I find this disturbing because (1) it denigrates the greatest strength of science (the ability to uncover its own flaws and fallacies) and (2) it creates a reliance on science as dogma rather than science as discovery.

I’ll get through the rest of the thread and try to respond more fully to your specific question, but I thought it important to address the broader issue of whether science and faith can conflict in the first place. Both scientists and theologians are bringing us new information all the time so the best we can say is that there is a conflict based on changeable, current understanding.

 

[Allyson]

Ahhh I see, you still think any scientific search for design should be forbidden because of the philosophical implications.

Clearly you do not see, because I never said it should be forbidden. I was just pointing out the philosophical implications based on the goal of the ID-creationsist movement, which is to be able to say - “See, its God!” I do not need to avoid conflating the two. They do that all on their own.

As for panspermia, some scientists have suggested it in jest (Crick did from what I understand); and others (like Dawkins from an atheist perspective) say that is is possible, but only slightly less improbable than God did it. Dawkins is not saying that is how he think life actually happened.

We do know that asteroids bring highly complex amino acids with them when they crash, so that is the one thing we can confirm can come from space.

I am all for testing the actual hypotheses of ID; however, we know so far is against the hypothesis. The science does not bear it out. If you want to accept science as it is, and believe that God put the process in place. That is a completely valid theological and philosophical position to take. You can believe that God set it up and let it play out independently. That is not what ID-creationsim does. It blurs the line between science and theology/philosophy.