A brief note before I leave ...

[shernren]

... for my annual 40-day break from Christian Forums.

Will be away from 22nd July to 31st August. Good time to re-orient myself.

It seems I won't be getting a break from origins-related issues, though. Over this sem my Overseas Christian Fellowship here will be running Bible studies on - you guessed it! - Genesis. That means a morning's worth of Bible study prep for each study each Saturday, followed by leading the actual Bible study two Fridays later.

At least a creationist friend of mine ("In first year I learned two things that contradicted each other: evolution in biology and the Second Law of Thermodynamics in chemistry") is not in my group, but the subject easily raises controversy. I really need to walk a tight balance. On the one hand, it's difficult to describe these years of consideration succinctly without sounding either like an arrogant brat or a cowardly compromiser. On the other, it's desperately important, if they are going to discuss Genesis at all, to discuss it well.

I'll see how it goes. Keep me in prayer.

 

[Pats]

You'll be missed. Take Care and see ya on the flip side.

 

[metherion]

Good luck and God Bless. Sounds like you're going to need both!

Metherion

 

[USincognito]

You'll be missed, but I hope your sabbatical is mentally and spiritually refreshing.

 

[Dannager]

Enjoy the break, and come back feeling awesome.

 

[Tinker Grey]

God Bless.

 

[gluadys]

God Bless, Shernren

I too will be in absentia for a while. I am due for surgery July 19, and will take a few weeks to recuperate before coming back on line.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Er ... do you mean a different date, gluadys? It's already the 21st.

In any case, our prayers are with you.

 

[crawfish]

Prayers for shenren for renewal, and for gluadys for recovery. Whenever her surgery is.

 

[shernren]

I find good stuff on Science on the day I leave! People with paid access can check this out, while this is for those who don't go to uni. What's interesting is how AiG, as usual, manages to twist this into "a victory for creationism" here:

Could this be the end of a debate that has been raging for years? Despite many claims of incontrovertible “fact” in evolutionary textbooks, researchers have been far from unified on the origin and development of modern humans (see Evolution Exposed for an in-depth look at what biology textbooks say on the issue). According to the report:

Debate over the origins of modern humans has simmered among anthropologists for years, with one theory asserting that Homo sapiens migrated across the world from a single point in Africa. The other theory states that multiple populations of Homo sapiens independently evolved from Homo erectus in regions beyond Africa.
​

To end this debate, a group of researchers, led by Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge, examined genetic data and took skull measurements from “105 populations around the world.” In their report in the July 19 issue of Nature, the team claims that they:

[found] that both genetic and skull variability decreased with distance from Africa. So populations in southeastern Africa held the highest variability compared with populations in other countries.
“Humans seem to have poured out of Africa, spread out across the world, but at a really quite uniform rate such that you get this lovely gradual loss of diversity,” said study team member William Amos of the University of Cambridge.
The results held even when the scientists accounted for climate, since climate conditions can lead to changes in skull features.
​

Now, of course, a creationist would certainly point out that all humans arising from a single population is exactly what the Bible has said all along. All humans, after all, are descendants of Adam through Noah’s family. The diversity of humanity is another reminder of the amazing knowledge or our Creator who programmed in a vast array of variability in the first two humans.

Except that a single population is many orders of magnitude different from a single pair.

Not all scientists are convinced by this latest salvo against the multiregional theory for the rise of modern humans, however. John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin–Madison says that this latest paper is based on outdated genetic research and that skull variability is no indication of the “origin of people.” (Professor Hawks should not be surprised on this last point—quite a few evolutionists have been inventing stories based on scant skeletal evidence for years.)

(emphasis added) Now if that isn't slander, what is? This piece of research is based on 37 measurements each of 4666 male skulls and 1579 female skulls. How many did, say, Bones of Contention analyze?

The report continues:

In his own research, Hawks is finding that natural selection has led to changes in thousands of genes during only the past few thousand years.
“I’m really thinking just the opposite of this paper,” Hawks said. “There are differences in the skull between populations, including their variability, but it is mostly due to very recent effects and not the origin of modern humans.”
​

Except for the claim of “origin of modern humans” in an evolutionary context, one might expect to find such a sentiment from a creationist researcher discussing the variation in humans that arose after mankind was dispersed at the Tower of Babel over 4,000 years ago. In fact, it is interesting to find that bits and pieces of the true history of the world are coming through in these competing materialistic theories—despite their attempts to construct an account of the past that excludes God.
Contrary to what this article concludes, however, the origin of humanity is very easy to pinpoint. We would invite scientists from both the out-of-Africa and the multiregional camps to look no further than Genesis 1–11 to solve this dilemma once and for all. (Hint: It wasn’t an apelike ancestor.)

I like the elephant in the room that nobody talks about: why should there be any correlation at all between fossil skull data and present genetic diversity?

... and in the feedback section there's this amazing little blooper:

Astrophysicists and astronomers use operational science to measure the distance to stars and galaxies that are light-years away.

(emphasis in bold added) No way! So the whole business with standard candles and redshifts are "operational"? Then what's the go with this?

But it is man who says that it has taken vast periods of time for heavier elements to form. But what source of information is being used to support that assertion? Were any of these astrophysicists or astronomers actually there to witness and record the time span they propose?

Of course they are! That's why it's called "operational science", right? This sloppy throwing-around of terms just reinforces my argument that the so-called "op science / origins science" distinction, and the presuppositionalism that goes with it, is really an act of philosophical naivete on the part of AiG. They run out of options when confronted with evidence that can be well-explained by conventional theories; so they cook up some stuff about how everyone "has the same evidence interpreted differently" and how operational science is reliable while origins science is not - which you don't hear a peep about when they have evidence that they think goes their way.

That's all for now!

 

[Assyrian]

Looks like the Lord has filled your net to breaking before your fast... Now leave your boat and follow him. Go, be blessed, come back full of the love, wisdom and power of God.

 

[gluadys]

Er ... do you mean a different date, gluadys? It's already the 21st.

In any case, our prayers are with you.

Yes, I do. Should be the 25th.

It's hopefully a fairly simple operation. A reversal of an ilieostomy necessitated by bowel surgery a year ago. So it's a matter of putting my innards back in working order again.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I imagine that you're looking forward to that.

 

[Willtor]

God bless, Shernren and Gluadys. We'll miss you, so come back soon.