Job 33:6
Well-Known Member
- Jun 15, 2017
- 7,449
- 2,804
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If anything, Swamidass is more accepting of conventional evolutionary biology than WLC, and was in fact instrumental in the latter's acceptance of it. He also has no use for most ID arguments, as you will learn if you spend time at his website. They both allow for miraculous intervention in the creation of the first humans, Swamidass in the de novo creation of a first couple who are biologically compatible with existing, evolved creatures, and WLC in divine modification of an evolved pair, along with the infusion of an immaterial soul.
Of the two, I find WLC's approach more compatible with both science and the Bible. With science, since he's postulating a genetic change that accounts at least in part for modern humans' behavioral changes; with science, because the focus on physical descent (with or without any genetic inheritance) as being essential to being human seems profoundly at odds with the NT focus on spiritual descent and adoption. But then, I don't find either at all plausible.
(You can read my take on WLC's book here, or more readably, through the link here.)
SFS, did you read that news on non-ranfom mutations in an article by UC Davis?
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-evolu...39r7zgsw7gVmXOI3564F5vJOQyo-YGLRXhBLSzo6qWlwg
Study challenges evolutionary theory that DNA mutations are random: Findings could lead to advances in plant breeding, human genetics
Journal Reference:
J. Grey Monroe, Thanvi Srikant, Pablo Carbonell-Bejerano, Claude Becker, Mariele Lensink, Moises Exposito-Alonso, Marie Klein, Julia Hildebrandt, Manuela Neumann, Daniel Kliebenstein, Mao-Lun Weng, Eric Imbert, Jon Ågren, Matthew T. Rutter, Charles B. Fenster, Detlef Weigel. Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature, 2022; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-04269
I wonder how much of this is actually old news with just a flashy headline.
-6-6
Upvote
0