Science is great, but... How about we discuss some scripture?!

[Deamiter]

Alright, I have a question, and it's mainly directed towards Deamiter because he brought up the subject, but I think other TEs might be able to answer also.

If you believe that Adam was a real person, as you say most of you do, and yet believe that most of the ages were given sacred numbers rather than real ages, how do you see Adam as the first human? With all these records of man's writing dated back to much much farther back. Is Adam the first human that God gave a soul? If he's real, but not the first human, why is he credited as such? Do the genealogies have holes in them?

I guess what I don't see is how Adam could be the first human (what makes him the first?), and if he is the first, how is he older than most historic texts and wall paintings and other things that have been dated past just the genealogies. Plus even the genealogies should be much shorter if you assume they're all closer to 70 years old. Where does Adam fit into the human time line?

I know this is kinda jumbled and not formulated as neatly as it could, but I just don't see the pieces fitting into the puzzle and I don't even know the right questions to ask. I'm just gonna stop.

Good questions. It's rather impressive when somebody (anybody, even me!) can recognize when they're imposing parts of their own world-view onto comments somebody else has made.

To answer the actual questions won't be entirely satisfying because there's no single understanding among those who accept evolution. I'll try to give my thoughts and some other major hypotheses though.

First off, was Adam the first man? As I've said before, it was far from uncommon for people to trace their geneologies back to mythical figures. You're talking about oral tradition passed down for centuries and even YEC theologians often admit that the geneologies may not be exhaustive. So while Adam may have been a real person thousands of years ago, stories built around him may have very little historical accuracy.

Anyway, I don't personally believe that Adam was the first man but was fixed in Genesis after hundreds of years of storytelling inspired by God as a means of leading his people. That said, most myths are built around real people and events and I certainly think that a Adam was modeled after a real person (again, not all at once but over centuries of oral tradition).

Some people go further to claim that Adam was indeed the first human with the same sort of mythical fillagree built around him over hundreds of years. I find it entirely plausable that God might create man via evolution and then grant the first humans eternal souls. There is no direct evidence for this view, but I do personally think that humans have some spiritual component or connection that is not generally given to all life on earth.

In short, Adam is not always understood as being based on a historical figure, but most TEs would be willing to admit that that's a strong possibility. Sometimes a TE will strongly believe that this historical figure was the first human, but because of the gradual nature of evolution the idea of the first of a species isn't a really concrete concept. I personally think that God has an ongoing relationship with all creatures, and simply intended to develop a more complex relationship with us as we developed the capacity for such a relationship. I don't in any way rule out the possibility that Adam could have been the first human (i.e. with a soul) or even that God might have picked two homonids and suddenly changed something in them. What I find rather unavoidable, however, is the conclusion that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other apes. Quite simply, no matter which way you present changes in morphology, there is a gradual change over time. I might also much more strongly consider the possibility of special creation of humans if you could get even two principle creationists to agree which homonid finds were human and which were not (though I'll refrain from posting the obligatory link to TalkOrigins showing what prominant creationists have claimed about key finds unless asked)

 

[Scotishfury09]

Good questions. It's rather impressive when somebody (anybody, even me!) can recognize when they're imposing parts of their own world-view onto comments somebody else has made.

To answer the actual questions won't be entirely satisfying because there's no single understanding among those who accept evolution. I'll try to give my thoughts and some other major hypotheses though.

First off, was Adam the first man? As I've said before, it was far from uncommon for people to trace their geneologies back to mythical figures. You're talking about oral tradition passed down for centuries and even YEC theologians often admit that the geneologies may not be exhaustive. So while Adam may have been a real person thousands of years ago, stories built around him may have very little historical accuracy.

Anyway, I don't personally believe that Adam was the first man but was fixed in Genesis after hundreds of years of storytelling inspired by God as a means of leading his people. That said, most myths are built around real people and events and I certainly think that a Adam was modeled after a real person (again, not all at once but over centuries of oral tradition).

Some people go further to claim that Adam was indeed the first human with the same sort of mythical fillagree built around him over hundreds of years. I find it entirely plausable that God might create man via evolution and then grant the first humans eternal souls. There is no direct evidence for this view, but I do personally think that humans have some spiritual component or connection that is not generally given to all life on earth.

In short, Adam is not always understood as being based on a historical figure, but most TEs would be willing to admit that that's a strong possibility. Sometimes a TE will strongly believe that this historical figure was the first human, but because of the gradual nature of evolution the idea of the first of a species isn't a really concrete concept. I personally think that God has an ongoing relationship with all creatures, and simply intended to develop a more complex relationship with us as we developed the capacity for such a relationship. I don't in any way rule out the possibility that Adam could have been the first human (i.e. with a soul) or even that God might have picked two homonids and suddenly changed something in them. What I find rather unavoidable, however, is the conclusion that humans evolved from a common ancestor with other apes. Quite simply, no matter which way you present changes in morphology, there is a gradual change over time. I might also much more strongly consider the possibility of special creation of humans if you could get even two principle creationists to agree which homonid finds were human and which were not (though I'll refrain from posting the obligatory link to TalkOrigins showing what prominant creationists have claimed about key finds unless asked)

Well, the thing I see is that whether or not Adam was the first human, isn't the concept that God blessed the first humans with a soul another 'Goddidit'? I've read Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan and he tries to explain how human intelligence could have happened by evolution but scientists are still baffled by it today. Also, was the first human born into a world of sin or were they actually tempted by the Devil? It's kind of comical to think, but was Satan just sitting around in Hell watching DirecTV waiting for God to give the first humans a soul? Is Lucifer's fall even a literal concept to TEs? Some of this may be better fit for the hamartiology section.

 

[shernren]

Well, the thing I see is that whether or not Adam was the first human, isn't the concept that God blessed the first humans with a soul another 'Goddidit'?

Not really, because the soul is not a scientific entity. Suppose someone wishes to prove that it is. How would you study the scientific nature of the soul? You can weigh a person just as he dies: the only time this was ever done, in 19th-century England IIRC, the scale lightened by just a bit, and the interested scientist determined that that human soul weighed about eight ounces. This suggests a general approach: for something as fundamentally un-studied by science, you should try to figure out what humans without souls look like, just as you can try to study how a drug works by having one group of subjects use the drug and another group not use it.

Suppose that somehow, scientists come up with a way to measure whether or not a particular human has a soul. Suppose further that scientists then breed a race of humans without souls. Suppose further that the scientists discover consistent chemical and biological differences between a human with a soul and another human without a soul. Then the existence of a soul in a human would be a scientific problem and would require a scientific explanation. Then to say that "God made those particular chemical alterations that produce the soul, live with it" would truly be a Goddidit answer and wouldn't help science at all.

But from the absurdity of the scenario, surely you can see that the soul is not a scientific phenomenon. Is there a gene in our DNA that codes for a relationship with God? Grant that our brain may be uniquely wired to adapt to the numinous and to be receptive to divine experiences. Even so, the soul (so far as we can talk as a soul as a thing-in-itself, instead of it being a facet of the complete human) arises out of our interaction with God; if there were no God then our souls and spirits would serve no useful purpose, having nothing to interact with. So the soul is not a scientific phenomenon (but remember, non-scientific things can still be very real), and there is no demand for a scientific explanation for it. It is only when God is used in place of a scientific explanation that we can criticize the "Goddidit" argument; if there is no scientific explanation necessary, and no scientific explanation to replace, then there is no objection.

 

[laptoppop]

It is only when God is used in place of a scientific explanation that we can criticize the "Goddidit" argument; if there is no scientific explanation necessary, and no scientific explanation to replace, then there is no objection.

I agree with you about science and souls - but I wanted to point out that in this last sentence I would object to "no scientific explanation to replace". This could be seen as putting the current conventional science over faith. Especially if there is an explanation which is possible, even if implausible, that is consistent with Scripture - that is the preferred explanation of reality.

 

[crawfish]

Not really, because the soul is not a scientific entity. Suppose someone wishes to prove that it is. How would you study the scientific nature of the soul? You can weigh a person just as he dies: the only time this was ever done, in 19th-century England IIRC, the scale lightened by just a bit, and the interested scientist determined that that human soul weighed about eight ounces. This suggests a general approach: for something as fundamentally un-studied by science, you should try to figure out what humans without souls look like, just as you can try to study how a drug works by having one group of subjects use the drug and another group not use it.

Suppose that somehow, scientists come up with a way to measure whether or not a particular human has a soul. Suppose further that scientists then breed a race of humans without souls. Suppose further that the scientists discover consistent chemical and biological differences between a human with a soul and another human without a soul. Then the existence of a soul in a human would be a scientific problem and would require a scientific explanation. Then to say that "God made those particular chemical alterations that produce the soul, live with it" would truly be a Goddidit answer and wouldn't help science at all.

But from the absurdity of the scenario, surely you can see that the soul is not a scientific phenomenon. Is there a gene in our DNA that codes for a relationship with God? Grant that our brain may be uniquely wired to adapt to the numinous and to be receptive to divine experiences. Even so, the soul (so far as we can talk as a soul as a thing-in-itself, instead of it being a facet of the complete human) arises out of our interaction with God; if there were no God then our souls and spirits would serve no useful purpose, having nothing to interact with. So the soul is not a scientific phenomenon (but remember, non-scientific things can still be very real), and there is no demand for a scientific explanation for it. It is only when God is used in place of a scientific explanation that we can criticize the "Goddidit" argument; if there is no scientific explanation necessary, and no scientific explanation to replace, then there is no objection.

I fail to see why there couldn't be a scientific explanation for the soul, or that if there was it would indicate that God didn't put it there. Creationists, and YEC's in particular, seem to put God's works in the "mystical" category where they are purely unexplainable, completely "anti-science". I tend to believe that as we grow in scientific knowledge we are getting closer and closer to God...as the ultimate creator, all knowledge inevitably leads to Him.

 

[laptoppop]

I fail to see why there couldn't be a scientific explanation for the soul, or that if there was it would indicate that God didn't put it there. Creationists, and YEC's in particular, seem to put God's works in the "mystical" category where they are purely unexplainable, completely "anti-science". I tend to believe that as we grow in scientific knowledge we are getting closer and closer to God...as the ultimate creator, all knowledge inevitably leads to Him.

Ummm, no. Creationists acknowledge that God works through normal natural processes as well as supernaturally. We just don't restrict His actions to *only* working through natural processes.

 

[theFijian]

I fail to see why there couldn't be a scientific explanation for the soul, or that if there was it would indicate that God didn't put it there.

The reason is that science can only be used to study the natural, not the supernatural.

 

[Deamiter]

Well, the thing I see is that whether or not Adam was the first human, isn't the concept that God blessed the first humans with a soul another 'Goddidit'? I've read Dragons of Eden by Carl Sagan and he tries to explain how human intelligence could have happened by evolution but scientists are still baffled by it today.

Have you studied something called 'God of the gaps?' People used to think that angels caused digestion, and it was quite a challenge for some of them to accept that God might not be directly responsible for digestion when a natural mechanism was shown.

Anyway, yes it's saying that God did it. However, you'll notice that I'm not dogmatically claiming that God MUST have done it this way. Also, I'm not using my claim that God performed a miracle as evidence that other claims based on this assumption are accurate. Compare this to YEC where God must have created exactly as in a historically interpreted Genesis, and because we are sure that God did it this way, all evidence must support our conclusion.

Finally. it's very true that we don't fully understand intelligence. In fact there are MANY things that science does not understand and is investigating. That's precisely where some Christians choose to insert God and where the problem of God of the gaps theology comes in. At one point we didn't understand digestion, meteorology, disease vectors etc... In each case, the supernatural was invoked, and in each case as our understanding of the universe increased, we were able to show that these things are not solely due to supernatural forces. Have we then disproven God? If we can explain intelligence fully in two or three decades, will we then have disproven God? If not, why do you pin the rise of intelligence on God as evidence of God's existence or action in the world?

Also, was the first human born into a world of sin or were they actually tempted by the Devil? It's kind of comical to think, but was Satan just sitting around in Hell watching DirecTV waiting for God to give the first humans a soul? Is Lucifer's fall even a literal concept to TEs? Some of this may be better fit for the hamartiology section.

A bit more comical than God sending somebody to hell because this guy thousands of years ago consumed a complex carbohydrate? I believe most Christians understand the fall to have happened before creation (or sometimes millions of years before the creation of humans). So was Satan just sitting around waiting for creation?

As I understand it, the fall of Satan had absolutely nothing to do with humans, but with Satan's lust for power. Satan didn't fall for the specific purpose of causing Adam to fall, so it doesn't make any sense to claim he was waiting around twiddling his thumbs until Adam fell.

 

[Jase]

I agree with you about science and souls - but I wanted to point out that in this last sentence I would object to "no scientific explanation to replace". This could be seen as putting the current conventional science over faith. Especially if there is an explanation which is possible, even if implausible, that is consistent with Scripture - that is the preferred explanation of reality.

Well, at the moment there is no possible explanation that is consistent with scripture and actually fits the observable evidence other than evolution. No creationist theory even holds a candle to any scientific theory. They just have no evidence or research to support any of their claims short of "because my interpretation of the Bible says so".

 

[crawfish]

The reason is that science can only be used to study the natural, not the supernatural.

The supernatural is only the natural we haven't discovered yet.

In my opinion.

 

[laptoppop]

The supernatural is only the natural we haven't discovered yet.

In my opinion.

Would you include walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people instantaneously, etc., then as undiscovered natural processes?

 

[laptoppop]

Well, at the moment there is no possible explanation that is consistent with scripture and actually fits the observable evidence other than evolution. No creationist theory even holds a candle to any scientific theory. They just have no evidence or research to support any of their claims short of "because my interpretation of the Bible says so".

Obviously, I disagree and I think you are showing a lack of knowledge regarding the current state of creationist research.

 

[Jase]

Obviously, I disagree and I think you are showing a lack of knowledge regarding the current state of creationist research.

Creationist research is an oxymoron. I was a creationist for 3 years, I know how little they actually do. Creationists have never offered anything to compete with the theory of evolution. They don't do science by their very own admission.

 

[laptoppop]

Creationist research is an oxymoron. I was a creationist for 3 years, I know how little they actually do. Creationists have never offered anything to compete with the theory of evolution. They don't do science by their very own admission.

Wow. I guess I'll just tell the folks at ICR, AIG, CMI, CRS, CSM, etc. to all go home and throw away their papers and especially peer-reviewed journals, shut down any research in progress, and sell the computers used for modeling.

http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.creationontheweb.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html
http://csm.org.uk/index.php

 

[crawfish]

Would you include walking on water, turning water into wine, healing people instantaneously, etc., then as undiscovered natural processes?

Let me put it this way:

God, as the creator, is a purely natural part of our universe. His ability to alter what we consider "reality" is also according to some natural law, albeit one that is so far above us that it seems like magic.

Abbot's "Flatland" explains this better than I can, by showing how a three-dimensional being can seem miraculous to a two-dimensional being because of his larger perspective, while still being perfectly consistent with the laws of nature. It's just that the laws of nature that govern 3-dimensional beings are not comprehended by two-dimensional beings.

So, "walking on water" - or more to the point, God's altering of reality to allow Jesus to walk on water, is not a natural law that we currently have access to or can really comprehend, but it is entirely consistent with a higher being altering our existence to do something that would otherwise be impossible.

 

[crawfish]

Wow. I guess I'll just tell the folks at ICR, AIG, CMI, CRS, CSM, etc. to all go home and throw away their papers and especially peer-reviewed journals, shut down any research in progress, and sell the computers used for modeling.

http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.creationontheweb.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html
http://csm.org.uk/index.php

A quick question: are the scientific theories and discoveries by these and other Creationist think tanks peer-reviewed by groups outside the Creationist agenda?

 

[laptoppop]

A quick question: are the scientific theories and discoveries by these and other Creationist think tanks peer-reviewed by groups outside the Creationist agenda?

Yes, on occasion. Lots of different people here, I can't speak for all of them - but I have seen papers which have specifically solicited non-creationist input.

 

[theFijian]

The supernatural is only the natural we haven't discovered yet.

In my opinion.

Then what you describe is not the supernatural. If the supernatural is a subset of the 'natural' then it is simply part of the 'natural' and therefore by definition, not supernatural.

 

[Jase]

Wow. I guess I'll just tell the folks at ICR, AIG, CMI, CRS, CSM, etc. to all go home and throw away their papers and especially peer-reviewed journals, shut down any research in progress, and sell the computers used for modeling.

http://www.icr.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.creationontheweb.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html
http://csm.org.uk/index.php

Sounds like a good idea since they aren't doing anything beneficial for the scientific community, and are only further corrupting gullible people to believe bad science.

 

[theFijian]

Yes, on occasion. Lots of different people here, I can't speak for all of them - but I have seen papers which have specifically solicited non-creationist input.

Have they passed independant peer-review? Can you give us just a few examples of such?