Re: In defense of Paul Seely

>>>>You're making a category mistake. YEC says that science is in Scripture and
must be "true"; so they are self-consistent in that they [think they] have the
correct answer -- so obviously all other "science" must be wrong. Therefore how
could they possibly change. But there is no reason to think that Scriptures were
ever written to answer scientific questions. You're forcing texts into boxes they
not only don't fit into, but could not even be imagined until recent history.
Despite the hard work you have put into your research (which I greatly admire), I
personally consider your interpretation as a reductio ad absurdum of the concordist
position.
 
Yes interpretation changes, but it's generally for theological reasons (albeit
sometimes prompted by other circumstances).
 
Karl<<<<

That is an interesting take on my position. Sometimes I too have wondered that.
Maybe my views are, maybe they aren't.

But, my views do allow historicity in the account and I don't have to self-levitate
imaginary epistemological certainty, or act hypocritically towards other religions
by denying them accommodationalism while engaging in it my self.

My views, generated in 1996, predicted that small brained hominids could have
handled technology. This is something that has been verified in 2004 by the
discovery of H. floresiensis whose stone tools are made identically to the way H.
erectus did 700 kyr ago. But of course everyone here knows that we wouldn't want a
religion or an apologetic that could possibly be falsified--no proper person would
do that.

My views, developed in 1996, predicted that humans would have language long ago--
there is good evidence for language prior to 100 kyr ago.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Morton.pdf

There is also evidence to point to language as far back as 750 kyr ago.

        "Even at times of low sea level, when Sumatra, Java and
Bali were connected to mainland Southeast Asia, at least two
sea crossings were required to reach Flores. The first of
these deep-water barriers, between the islands of Bali and
Lombok, is about 25 km wide and constitutes a major
biogeographical boundary, the Wallace Line. Prior to human
intervention, only animals capable of crossing substantial
water barriers by swimming, flying or rafting on flotsam
were able to establish populations on Flores (e.g.
elephants, rats). In fact, the impoverished nature of the
fauna on the island in the Early and Middle Pleistocene
rules out the possibility of temporary landbridges from
continental Southeast Asia. The presence of hominids on
Flores in the Early Pleistocene therefore provides the
oldest inferred date for human maritime technology anywhere
in the world. Elsewhere, dates for such capabilities are
much more recent. These findings indicate that the
intelligence and technological capabilities of H. erectus
may have been seriously underestimated. An accumulating
body of evidence from elsewhere supports this conclusion
(e.g. Thieme 1997).
         "The complex logistic organization needed for people to
build water-craft capable of transporting a biologically and
socially viable group across significant water barriers,
also implies that people had language. Previously the
organizational and linguistic capacity required for sea
voyaging was thought to be the prerogative of modern humans
and to have only appeared in the late Pleistocene. It now
seems that humans had this capacity 840,000 years ago." M.
J. Morwood et al, "Archaeological and Palaeontological
Research in Central Flores, East Indonesia: results of
Fieldwork 1997-1998," Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p.
285,286

And, there is supportive evidence of language in the fact that stories about the
recently living H. floresiensis say he had a language. Since he was descended from
H. erectus, that strongly implies that H. erectus also had a language. If so, my
view easily accommodates that piece of information. No other concordistic view will
accommodate it easily.

My views actually fit the genetic data with the earliest human genes dating to the
Miocene but maintain the theologically important doctrine of the unity of humanity.

gene................age.of.the.gene.............reference
green.opsin.........>5,500,000..............Ayala.et.al,.1994
HERVs...............~5,000,000..............Johnson.and.Coffin.1999
Lipoprotein.........~2,000,000..............Ayala.et.al,.1994
PDHA1...............~1,860,000..............Harris.and.Hey,.1999
Beta-globin.........~1,360,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
dys44...............~1,350,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Plp.................~1,280,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Ace.................~1,110,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Pdha1...............~1,050,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Melanocortin-1......~1,000,000..............Harding,.et.al,.2000
Zfx...................~930,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Lpl...................~910,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
ß-globin..............~800,000..............Harding,.et.al,.1997
ms205.minisatellite....720,000-1,040,000....Alonso.and.Armour.2001
Mclr..................~710,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
non-coding.area.on.X..~675,000..............Kaessman.et.al,.1999
Xq13.3................~560,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Hprt..................~530,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
Chromosome.22..........504,000-2,112,000....Zhao.et.al,.2000
Gk....................~410,000..............Takahata.et.al,.2001
ZDF...................~306,000..............Huang.et.al,.1998

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm

All other views of Adam have modern men having genes not inherited from Adam
(notwithstanding RTB's false claim that all genetic variation could happen within
60 kyr).

This also fits with the time frame of the earliest hominids around 6 million years
ago.

My view predicted that modern man would have ancient DNA in him. Mungo man was a
confirmation of that as was the discovery that the red-head gene Melanocortin-1
came from Europe and is about 100,000 years old. That was a time and place when no
modern humans were living in Europe. Other views of apologetics were either
hostile to the idea or neutral.

My view actually has a flood that ACTUALLY HAPPENED as opposed to the Mesopotamian
self-delusion. My flood can last a year without incredibly special or miraculous
circumstances. Unlike views recently discussed here, I don't have to ignore the
coriollis force, have special winds, water flowing uphill (amazing that adults
beleive that!). I don't even have to have miracles. And I don't have to to believe
in a totally mythical/non-existant Mesopotamian flood which has zero evidence of
its occurrence just like the YEC flood y'all disdain so much.

My view is the ONLY concordistic view which fits with the clear evidence of
religious and artistic expression in the hominids from the last few million years.
(the oldest recognized artwork is the Makapansgat pebble which dates 3.2 million
years, and the oldest manufactured art is a face dated 1.6 myr ago. And
Bilzingsleben sure looks like a religious site to me see
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/religion.htm

All of you who believe in a late Adam have no way to explain the evidence for
spiritual beliefs among the erectines.

My view is one of two concordistic view which allows evolution. Indeed, my view
sees the Bible as actually teaching evolution.

My view would have God tell us something real about the world, your view would have
him tell us something mythical (Rich Blinne's statement that accommodationalism is
trying to avoid having the Scripture say something it doesn't totally ignores that
until the advent of modern geology, most people read it as real history, which
seems to indicate that that is what the Scripture IS saying. This is separate from
the question of the accounts veracity). The way I see it, accommodationalism makes
God out to be as much of a liar as does YEC.

My view avoids the two contradictory creation accounts (Genesis 1 vs 2) view.

But of course, the game here is not to fit reality but to think happy thoughts and
to avoid any possibility that we could be proven wrong. I think Plantinga's term
is 'exclusivism' which means little more than declaring ourselves to be right and
then believing that we are right! What a delusional way to live one's life!

You know, if it is a choice between having reality in my religion vs having a self-
delusion, I choose reality even if it is against long odds.
Received on Fri Jun 9 12:43:05 2006