Re: [asa] ORIGINS: (Adam or a group of Adams?) pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for evolution...?

Aside from the various other ways in which this particular question is
causing me angst right now, here is something else that bothers me about
it. It seems to me that this question presents a particularly thorny issue
for how and to what extent "science" may be used to intepret scripture vs.
how and to what extent we need to assert scripture over against a particular
scientific data point.

When we consider the age of the earth / universe and the creation "days," it
seems to me that it is easier to be flexible. There are any number of
exegetical questions before we even get to the scientific ones. Moreover,
messing with the age of the earth / universe involves basic physical
constants like the speed of light that can't really be messed with under the
anthropic principle. Finally, the theological issues seem somewhat less
thorny -- though the question of death before the fall is not a small one.

When we consider the exegetical issues concerning Adam, IMHO at least, there
seems to be significantly less flexibility, at least within even a moderate
"inerrancy" framework. IMHO, without disrespect to those who think
otherwise, it does too much damage to the doctrine of scripture and to the
narrative framework of scripture to suggest that the accommodation principle
-- which I think is a valid principle generally -- goes so far as to render
these texts essentially non-historical. So for me, this seems to be a place
in which it might be appropriate to say that, while scripture does not teach
"science," it does to some extent bear on "history," such that it might be
appropriate to question the naturalistic assumptions underlying particular
scientific models.

In particular, it seems to me that the genetic continuity between humans and
our presumed chimp ancestors, and population gentics studies based on
presumed times of divergence and rates of mutation, do not render the
traditional understanding of Adam impossible. They render it difficult, and
perhaps unlikely, but not *impossible*. It is *possible* that God specially
and miraculously created Adam using pre-existing hominid genes; and it is *
possible* that God caused imago Dei man to be dispersed geographically in
such a way that the histocompatibility diversity we observe today happened
faster than the models assumed. This does not violate any fundamental
physical constant such as the speed of light. It is a different kind, or at
least a different degree, of question than the age of the earth.

At the same time, we can tentatively propose some other scenarios. But in
my view, it's unfair to equate some push-back here with "YEC thinking."
Perhaps, like the wine at Cana, this really is a place at which
methodologial naturalism, without the illumination of scripture, does not
really reflect the truth of history.

On Nov 12, 2007 3:03 PM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, evolution does not absolutely rule out a single couple as
> ancestral to humanity. Glenn Morton's model develops this line of
> thinking. It posits some rather long gaps in the genealogies and has
> other difficulties, but then there are difficulties in any approach to
> reconciling the scientific data and Genesis 1-11. It is much easier
> to have rapid change in a small population. Any particular mutation
> important to making humans human would have its origin in a single
> individual. Many other variant scenarios with some sort of historical
> Adam are also possible.
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 12 15:32:44 2007