The challenge for Theistic Evolutionists

[Oncedeceived]

Mitochondrial Eve isn't even a single individual , for starters.

You are wrong I am afraid.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

HowStuffWorks "Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?"

 

[Black Akuma]

You are wrong I am afraid.

Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.

HowStuffWorks "Are we all descended from a common female ancestor?"

Again, I should have been clearer. It's a single individual like, say, the president is.

It's a title. It changes.

 

[Sayre]

So... very... very... frustrating...

It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

I have cut out a lot of your post because it is the same stuff we've been over a thousand (no, I'm not being "literal") times before.

I broke them into three topics

#1 - your views on Scripture
#2 - your views on science
#3 - your views on truth

It is not surprising that we disagree with each other substantially on all three topics.

#1 - your views on Scripture

1. The Scriptures cannot be studied "scientifically" with any degree of accuracy.
2. Still, it is not a science book. It doesn't teach or affirm the laws of physics.
3. If God had used evolution or billions of years, He would not have told us otherwise.
4. Genesis 1 is not written as a metaphor, and the Fourth Commandment, written by the finger of God, states that He created the world in six days. It is not possible to get any more specific.
5. The Scriptures state that man was created by God on the sixth day of creation.
6. Either you render the largest part of the Scriptures to be mythology and falsehood, or you acknowledge that God DID create the universe in six days and He allowed a mechanism by which species could go forth and multiply.

The problem I have here is that points 1 and 2 clearly state that Scripture is not scientific (we agree here) and then points 3 - 6 interpret Scripture as if it were useful for modern day scientific inquiry into origins science. You can't have it both ways! It either is or isn't scientific.

I'd like you to clarify why you clearly state that Scripture isn't scientific and then read it as if it is.

The bible is clearly pre-enlightenment. To read pre-enlightenment text with the view to study origins science is to force it into a post-enlightenment framework. It just doesn't work. It generates supposed contradictions that would never exist if we just acknowledge the bible for what it is, rather than what it isn't.

#2 - your views on what science is

1. Science is not a synonym for truth, and scientific does not mean indisputably validated.
2. Scientific does not equal real. I think that's your biggest problem. You don't understand exactly what science is and you lack an understanding of its limitations.
3. For example, science tells us that a man who has been dead for three days cannot return to life.
4. Science tells us that there are no demons and there is no demonic possession,
5. You state this repeatedly by interjecting "science" as if it were a synonym for "truth." Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.
6. Evolution is a lie that serves the father of lies.
7. Evolution claims that all life evolved on its own without any supernatural intervention, and that man is merely a more evolved species. That gives man no special value.

I will be very clear on my epistemology. I am not an empiricist nor an evidentialist. I am a classic foundationalist who accepts reformed epistemology. For example, I take belief in God to be properly basic.

With that in mind, I will clarify my view on science. Since science is limited to the natural world, it does not and cannot study the full scope of topics, and cannot study the metaphysical at all. Science is not an appropriate tool to make metaphysical discoveries, but it is an appropriate tool to make physical discoveries.

Science has no metaphysical position because that whole area of study is out of scope. That is, scientists qua scientists, cannot be atheistic or theistic. Evolution does not, therefore, have an opinion on the value of mankind, evolution cannot claim there is no supernatural power, science cannot tell us that miracles are impossible or that demons do not exist.

In this sense, science can make true statements about the physical world, and no statements about the metaphysical world.

This doesn't stop some atheist scientists from using science as a platform to make metaphysical claims. But when they do this, they are being philosophers, not scientists.

I understand what science is, despite your claim that I don't .

Evolution is a foregone conclusion in science. But this makes no metaphysical claims. In relation to the bible, you said "It doesn't teach or affirm the laws of physics." If the bible doesn't teach physics, and science makes no metaphysical claims, then how is it possible for the two to contradict?

#3 - your views on truth

1. If the story is false then the argument is invalid.
2. You state this repeatedly by interjecting "science" as if it were a synonym for "truth." Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.
3. You accused him of using a teaching device based on a myth, while Luke taught as factually. It he was teaching a myth as fact, he must have been lying.

Here is where I believe you are still interpreting the bible as a post enlightenment text, failing to take into account the fact that it is pre-englightenment. Pre-enlightenment, stories were the primary vehicle of conveying truth. Pure conveyance of fact was not of primary essence pre-englightenment. But you are reading stories in the bible as a transmission of fact rather than a story that conveys fact. There is a big difference!

What I am doing is reading the stories for the fact they convey, and claiming that they convey truth. You are claiming that unless I read those stores as conveying fact (the literal sense) that I am claiming the stories are false. Unfortunately, it is not dichotomous like that. How can you justify that Luke taught a fact directly rather than conveying fact through story?

I could continue this debate with you, but it is pointless unless you address the differences listed above.

 

[Sayre]

My comments in italics.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Is the you in this me? I have not used AiG in our conversation.

Nope - the "you" is not "Oncedeceieved", just a general statement. If someone quotes AIG at me, they are not quoting scholarly research. KWCrazy is an example (since he quoted AiG).


I never implied that he was.
Yes you did. I said that evolution had put to bed the idea of a literal Adam and Eve, and you objected and provided the link as evidence. A literal Adam and Eve are dated back only 6000 years, and this article is providing dates somewhere in the order of 200,000 years. That is not evidence for a literal Adam and Eve. That is counter evidence.

There is reason to believe that the "global flood" is not a correct reading of the original Hebrew and that a local and very large flood occurred at the appropriate time and place. However, I have not researched all this so I am only putting that out there without having a determination of that hypothesis.
OK - I also don't believe in the local flood hypothesis. A local flood has as many contradictions as a worldwide flood. The whole thing is a myth.


Why not?
Because Biblical Eve is not 200,000 years in the past.

Looks like you are cherry picking here. This is a quote from the paper:

Meanwhile, a team led by Paolo Francalacci, a population geneticist at the University of Sassari, Italy, came to a similar conclusion by studying the Y chromosomes of 1,200 men from the island of Sardinia. The team identified nearly 7,000 previously unknown Y-chromosome variations and used that detail to create their own molecular clock. The clock helped to pinpoint key events in Sardinian history, such as the rise of Neolithic populations there and the arrival of Africans as part of the Roman slave trade. It also suggested that Adam lived 180,000–200,000 years ago, similar to initial estimates of Eve’s age2.
Nope - not cherry picking. That part of the article supports the parts of the article I quoted. The dating of Adam and Eve in no way support the "literal" biblical account.


Emphasis mine.

If he has a problem with the use of biblical names we can assume him to be somewhat biased.

No - he is bristling because he doesn't want to give the impression (by using biblical names) that this science supports the biblical account. It doesn't.

He made references to a literal Adam and Noah. Why would He do that?
Because stories conveyed important truths back then. Just like the story of the boy who cried wolf conveys an important truth now. Stories are a valid way of teaching truths and hence referencing stories is simply building on existing material to continue to draw out truth. No big deal. Please justify why a reference to a story implies the story is literal. You cannot simply assume it to be the case.

The fact that others do not interpret their own creation models to modern science is of no concern to me and does nothing to how or why we should or shouldn't do so with the Christian Creation Narrative.
It should! It informs you of the nature of pre-enlightenment creation narratives and how the recipients of those narratives interpreted the narratives. The bible is a product of it's time whether you like it or not, and since that time is so significantly different to our modern time, you really ought to understand the nuances so you can give due regard to the text.

The fact that there are other creation stories is again no concern to how or in what way we interpret ours.
See above.

I believe it is a narrative that describes the actions that God took in creating the universe and I believe that is what He intended. Why do you have such a problem with that?
Because it is clearly in contradiction with His other book (the natural world). Ever heard of the two book hypothesis?

I asked for evidence.
Just exactly what do you think textual evidence is? If that isn't evidence, what kind of evidence do you want? Textual criticism and interpretation isn't something that you take into a lab and do a spectral density analysis of. What do you want? You won't find a single scholar who agrees with your division of chapters, not one.

How much time was there in the six days of creation? Do you realize that yom in Hebrew has many meanings and that it can mean substantial periods of time?
It was a story and the days form the structure for the story. They are a literary device, not a passage of time. To ask how much time there was in those days is nonsensical. The fact that yom has many meanings is a red herring. The story remains a story.

There you go assuming once again. YEC is not necessary in a literal Genesis.
Uhh wha? You have even more scientific contradictions to deal with if you want to make a literal Genesis into OEC. OEC is only defensible when you are happy to spiritualise or allegorise parts of the account. But a literal OEC account is in no mans land.

What evidence do they use to make their conclusions?
As above - textual evidence! The link makes it very very clear.

Do you think that if the creator of the Titanic were to give a over description of the crafting of the ship that it would be scientifically sound? I believe that the description of Genesis should be scientifically sound.
I have bad news for you - it isn't. It was never intended to be scientifically sound. The audience wasn't asking scientific questions. The scientific hypothesis did not emerge until thousands of years later. Why do you believe that the author intended for the account to be scientifically sound? Please justify that assumption rather than stating the assumption as a question.

 

[KWCrazy]

KWCrazy is an example (since he quoted AiG).

Actually, I referenced the verses. AIG just had them all compiled in a nice neat list. What matters is what God says, not any website.

 

[KWCrazy]

The problem I have here is that points 1 and 2 clearly state that Scripture is not scientific (we agree here) and then points 3 - 6 interpret Scripture as if it were useful for modern day scientific inquiry into origins science.

Don't be silly. The Scriptures teach about our origins. They do not address "origin science."

I'd like you to clarify why you clearly state that Scripture isn't scientific and then read it as if it is.

You seem to have a problem where you think that "scientific" is another word for "truth." It isn't. Again, science is the study of the PHYSICAL world. It deals with NATURAL law. The Bible teaches us about eternity, which is supernatural.

The bible is clearly pre-enlightenment.

That depends entirely on what you believe the bible to be. if it's the inspired word of God, then God was certainly not unenlightened. If it's the writings of man, then it's useless to study and of no more redeeming value than Moby Dick or The Illiad.

To read pre-enlightenment text with the view to study origins science is to force it into a post-enlightenment framework.

Since there is no scientifically viable explanation for origination, I think "origins science" must be a oxymoron; like jumbo shrimp. There are origins and there is science. Science can't study origins because our origin was supernatural and science has no ability to study the supernatural. So do I elevate the Bible to the same level as science? Absolutely not, because the word of God supersedes the claims of science. Science holds that things which are impossible could not have happened. The Bible shows 333 examples where the impossible DID happen. In fact, miracles still occur today.

Since science is limited to the natural world, it does not and cannot study the full scope of topics, and cannot study the metaphysical at all. Science is not an appropriate tool to make metaphysical discoveries, but it is an appropriate tool to make physical discoveries.

On that we can agree.

That is, scientists qua scientists, cannot be atheistic or theistic.

SCIENTISTS can. The study cannot.

Evolution does not, therefore, have an opinion on the value of mankind,

Evolution holds that man is merely a more evolved animal; descended from simpler forms; not created by any God.

evolution cannot claim there is no supernatural power,

Evolution makes the claim that humans evolved from simpler forms, so either evolution is false or any claims to the contrary must be false.

science cannot tell us that miracles are impossible or that demons do not exist.

Science can tell us what natural laws are and that miracles cannot occur naturally. Contrary to what many here seem to think, you are absolutely correct that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of demons.

In this sense, science can make true statements about the physical world, and no statements about the metaphysical world.

In this we are in agreement. However, the "truth" of science is relative to the greater truth, which may or may not agree.
If you are willing to acknowledge the limitations of science and not put it up as if it were the ultimate truth of the universe, then please accept my apology. It would seem that you are in a minority. Most who believe in evolution seem to think that science disproves the Biblical account of creation, or that it can somehow prove man descended from a lesser animal. Evolution may be scientific, but that doesn't mean it's right or that it contains the truth. Ultimately, the truth rests with the father and anything which contradicts the word of God cannot be truth.

In relation to the bible, you said "It doesn't teach or affirm the laws of physics." If the bible doesn't teach physics, and science makes no metaphysical claims, then how is it possible for the two to contradict?

Science and the Bible do not contradict each other. Scientists, and especially internet scientists, attempt to contradict the bible all the time.

Here is where I believe you are still interpreting the bible as a post enlightenment text, failing to take into account the fact that it is pre-englightenment. Pre-enlightenment, stories were the primary vehicle of conveying truth. Pure conveyance of fact was not of primary essence pre-englightenment. But you are reading stories in the bible as a transmission of fact rather than a story that conveys fact. There is a big difference!

Again, this remains a point of disagreement. I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Since God is omniscient, there was never a time of pre-enlightenment. He understands everything about the universe He created. It doesn't really matter if the people who recorded His message knew what He meant to say or not. There are many stories in the Bible. Some of them are represented as parables, but the parables are clearly identifiable as such. Even then, there is nothing to say that the parables didn't actually happen. Jesus, being the son of God, would have seen all the events of mankind and would have been able to use lessons from the real world. Was the prodigal son a true story? Was the Good Samaritan a true story? These were used as teaching illustrations. Whether they happened or not is irrelevant. Jesus said in Mark 4:11 "The secret of God’s kingdom has been given to you, but to those who are outside everything comes in parables." The feeding of the multitudes, however, was recorded as fact. Recorded facts and parables used to instruct are easy to discern from context.

 

[Delphiki]

...which is supernatural.

Which, by definition, means it doesn't naturally exist.

 

[Black Akuma]

Contrary to what many here seem to think, you are absolutely correct that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of demons.

Who on this board ever said that science can prove or disprove demons?

Most who believe in evolution seem to think that science disproves the Biblical account of creation, or that it can somehow prove man descended from a lesser animal.

No, most don't believe that. Science doesn't deal in proof. It can provide evidence - but not proof.

Evolution holds that man is merely a more evolved animal; descended from simpler forms; not created by any God.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as 'more evolved'. Evolution is not a ladder.

Also, evolution does not say man wasn't created by a god. It is entirely possible for a god to exist, and even for that god to have created man...through evolutionary processes. If such a being was truly all powerful, creating mankind through means that would appear naturalistic is certainly not outside of his bounds.

SCIENTISTS can. The study cannot.

Yeah, that's what she said. What do you think 'qua' means?

 

[Dizredux]

Caught this while passing by and wanted to comment on a few points.

Either you render the largest part of the Scriptures to be mythology and falsehood, or you acknowledge that God DID create the universe in six days and He allowed a mechanism by which species could go forth and multiply.

This involves the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other options.

Science is not a synonym for truth, and scientific does not mean indisputably validated. Of course not.

Nothing in science is "indisputably validated". Science is primarily inductive in nature and always has to leave open the possibility of new information that can change the picture.

Scientific does not equal real. I think that's your biggest problem. You don't understand exactly what science is and you lack an understanding of its limitations.

Science is just a tool, nothing else. To make a simplified statement, it can only deal with phenomena that care publicly measurable in some way. For this reason, science cannot deal with the supernatural unless it does become measurable thus making it natural.

For example, science tells us that a man who has been dead for three days cannot return to life.

No it really doesn't. It tells us that there is, to date, no evidence that this can happen. There are however instances of people who are apparently dead that have recovered. Look at the Victorian fear of being buried alive.

It is part of my faith that Jesus did return but that is my faith and that is adequate for me. I feel no need to try to present it as scientific fact.

Science tells us that there are no demons and there is no demonic possession,

No it doesn't. It only tells us that there is, to date, no evidence of this.

Science studies the physical word, not the supernatural world.

This is what science does. One way of putting it is that science deals with truth with a small "t" but not Truth with capital "T", Methodical Naturalism if you would.

Evolution is a lie that serves the father of lies.

Oh my, I can see no way for you to back that up except by rejecting the principle of scientific evidence and the *huge* amounts of evidence for biological evolution.

If you reject evolution as part of your religious faith, I have no problem with that. It is only when this rejection is stated as fact that I object.

Evolution claims that all life evolved on its own without any supernatural intervention, and that man is merely a more evolved species.

This is incorrect. Science does not involve itself with supernatural intervention and stands mute on that. If you cannot measure it in some way, science cannot deal with it so cannot comment on it (simplified but reasonably accurate). On the other point, evolution does not involve with "more" or "less" evolved. That would imply a goal and evolution only deals with the immediate environment.

Just throwing in some information,

Dizredux

 

[KWCrazy]

Who on this board ever said that science can prove or disprove demons?

Apparently Delphiki believes it.

No, most don't believe that. Science doesn't deal in proof.

You haven't read much on this forum, apparently, because those who post here seem to believe that evolution disproves the Biblical account of creation.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as 'more evolved'. Evolution is not a ladder.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Increasingly complex = more involved. Evolutionists don't like to call it a ladder. They call it tree. Regardless, it's an upward progression of life from more simple forms to increasingly complex forms.

Also, evolution does not say man wasn't created by a god. It is entirely possible for a god to exist, and even for that god to have created man...through evolutionary processes.

However, God said that he created man from dust on the sixth day, not that He evolved man over millions of years. By definition, God cannot speak an untruth. If God's word is false, then there is no God. If God exists, then His word is truth. Either evolution is right or God is truth. There can be no compromise.

Yeah, that's what she said. What do you think 'qua' means?

She said, "That is, scientists qua scientists, cannot be atheistic or theistic."
Subject: Scientists. Verb: Be. Qua scientists is a clause. Simplified to subject, verb and object, you have "Scientists be atheistic (or theistic)." However, scientists CAN BE atheistic or theistic. Scientists are people. Science is the field of study.

 

[Black Akuma]

Apparently Delphiki believes it.

Where'd he say that?'

At any rate, one person is not, by any definition, 'many', so...

because those who post here seem to believe that evolution disproves the Biblical account of creation.

At most, I've heard it said that evolution falsifies it, but that's not the same thing as flatly disproving it.

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Increasingly complex = more involved. Evolutionists don't like to call it a ladder. They call it tree. Regardless, it's an upward progression of life from more simple forms to increasingly complex forms.

You're using a definition from a dictionary. For scientific definition, you need scientific sources. Here's one.

Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Also, in what objective way are we 'more complex' than anything else on this planet? What are you talking about? Physical structures? DNA?

However, scientists CAN BE atheistic or theistic.

Yes, in the same way they can be basketball players or food critiques. But those thing and their religious beliefs do not fall under their capacity as scientists.

However, God said that he created man from dust on the sixth day, not that He evolved man over millions of years. By definition, God cannot speak an untruth. If God's word is false, then there is no God. If God exists, then His word is truth. Either evolution is right or God is truth. There can be no compromise.

But you didn't say 'the God of the Bible', did you? You said

not created by any God.

You said 'any' God, which sort of implies you're talking about more than one specific god. If that's not what you meant, chose you words more carefully.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

If it's the writings of man, then it's useless to study and of no more redeeming value than Moby Dick or The Illiad.

Saying it is useless to study is rather unfair; as a historical document, the bible is invaluable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, I should have been clearer. It's a single individual like, say, the president is.

It's a title. It changes.

I really don't know what you are trying to say here?

 

[KWCrazy]

This involves the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other options.

No, there are not. Removing the six day creation and the first three chapters of Genesis denies several core principles of the Bible INCLUDING one of the Ten Commandments. It is NOT possible for the Bible to be true if its core principles are false. It is NOT possible for man to have evolved if God created him on day six.

Nothing in science is "indisputably validated".

Therefore science =/= truth, as I said.

Science is just a tool, nothing else. To make a simplified statement, it can only deal with phenomena that care publicly measurable in some way. For this reason, science cannot deal with the supernatural unless it does become measurable thus making it natural.

I said that. It can't study the supernatural, not can it either affirm or deny its existence.

No it really doesn't. It tells us that there is, to date, no evidence that this can happen.

You failed biology, I take it.
"Once the flesh begins to rot, there's no possibility of resuscitation. A word of clarification, however: flesh can die in areas around the body even on a live person. That's why frostbite turns black. When we talk about decomposition being a sign of death, we are suggesting the entire body has begun to decompose and that the person is not breathing and the heart is not beating."
source

There are however instances of people who are apparently dead that have recovered.

You're begging the question. Being apparently dead is not the same as being dead. Lazarus had begun to decompose. Jesus was also clearly dead. Science cannot account for someone actually BEING DEAD for three days and returning to life.

It is part of my faith that Jesus did return but that is my faith and that is adequate for me. I feel no need to try to present it as scientific fact.

Nothing scientific about it. Miracles defy physical laws.

No it doesn't. It only tells us that there is, to date, no evidence of this.

Do you really think that something non-physical is going to leave physical evidence?

Oh my, I can see no way for you to back that up except by rejecting the principle of scientific evidence and the *huge* amounts of evidence for biological evolution.

There is no scientific evidence for origination. There is no proof of evolution. Science can only offer a natural explanation for things. If something is supernatural, science cannot possibly supply the correct answer.

 

[Black Akuma]

I really don't know what you are trying to say here?

From the Wikipedia article that AV ironically used as a source.

The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the person in prehistory who will fit this definition can change, not only because of new discoveries, but also because of unbroken mother-daughter lines coming to an end by chance. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. Every generation, mitochondrial lineages end, such as when an only daughter has only sons. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had at least two daughters who both have living, matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.

See? It's not the Biblical Eve. It's not one set person anymore than 'World Heavyweight Champion' or 'President of the United States' are. It's a title with specific parameters that can apply to different people as time goes on.

It is not the Biblical Eve. The site you used as a source actually explains this is great detail - you should read the entire article.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is not the Biblical Eve. The site you used as a source actually explains this is great detail - you should read the entire article.

mtDNA Eve [like y-Adam] only represents the "oldest" female [or male] on record.

Meaning the oldest one found.

 

[Black Akuma]

mtDNA Eve [like y-Adam] only represents the "oldest" female [or male] on record.

Meaning the oldest one found.

Um. No.

From the source you yourself used.

Not the only woman[edit]
One misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[7][33] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time have descendants alive today, but at some point in the past each of their lines of descent did not produce a female, thereby breaking the mitochondrial DNA lines of descent

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor. Not the first woman. Not the oldest. She had a natural mother and father.

Keep in mind, I'm getting this from YOUR source.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor. Not the first woman.

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[Black Akuma]

Isn't that what I just said?

It's really, really not.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why even call her "Mitochondrial Eve" when you don't believe in Eve at all? That's like debating about a God you claim doesn't exist. Oh, wait.... that happens all the time.