On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Clounch, I'm not sure about what your concern is. Personally, my view
> of human nature is one of "holistic dualism." I think human beings have a
> "spiritual" nature -- the "soul" -- that is more than the aspects of the
> "human" that are reducible to biology. At the same time, I think human
> beings are a "whole," not merely "embodied souls." Given this, I think it's
> likely that there are aspects of human nature that simply cannot be
> investigated by science. I would suggest that, at the very least, the first
> true humans -- Adam and Eve -- were imparted this spiritual nature and that
> it was subsequently propogated throughout the biological human species. I
> don't think this has anything to do with genetics.
Surely PZ Meyers and other materialists would beg to disagree? And
wouldnt they say they do this on scientific grounds? Why would they
be wrong merely because some theologians say they are wrong? What
sort of belief system is dualism? Is it a
secular idea? Or something reserved for church?
Thinking just a bit out of the box for a moment,
let me ask this: Could this imparted spiritual nature have been given
to Chimpanzees or some other species rather than homo sapiens? Or did
homo sapiens have some supporting resources that other species didn't
possess?
Think of it as software. One wouldnt be very successful trying to run
a higher level desktop operating system (such as Vista or RedHat
Enterprise Linux) on a linkysys wireless-G router because the 200
MHz ARM processor is too slow and there just are not enough resources
there in the box. So homo sapiens may possibly be the physical
prerequisite of the human mind or race. Doesn't genetics have a lot
to do with that? Genetics might not be the cause but it might be the
prerequisite to the "imparting" of special cognitive abilities.
>
> However, there is a robust debate even within evangelical circles at the
> moment about monism-vs-dualism. In a recent and very engaging book, Joel
> Green of Fuller Seminary argues for an essentially monist position based on
> both the Biblical and scientific evidence ("Body, Soul and Human Life").
> John Cooper of Calivn College is a key proponent of holistic dualism ("Body,
> Soul & Life Everlasting"), while William Hasker argues for emergentism ("The
> Emergent Self"). It should be noted that even Christians who are monist or
> emergentist with respect to the "soul" are not reductive materialists. In
> other words, all of the foregoing theologians agree that human beings are
> more than biology -- that we have some capacity to exercise agency and free
> will -- and that God is spiritual and yet ontologically personal and real
> apart from any biology.
>
That is interesting. But....
Doesn't that really only apply only in the field of theology? I mean,
it goes toward answering Christian theological questions. But does it
do anything from the viewpoint of science? I suspect it does nothing
from a scientific perspective. So I would expect Dawkins and Meyers to
reject it all as religion. And why shouldn't they?
And this of course is what bothers me about the whole idea of saying
human psychology is a study of the supernatural. If one is going to
reject *anything* purely because it is religious then why would this
rejection not apply across the board to anything that stems from
religious thinking?
To list some items commonly rejected by list members:
A. Some people reject creationism merely because it is religious.
B. Others reject ID merely because (they claim) it is religious.
C. Others reject anything theistic (even TE) because it comes from
religious thinking.
The invocation of the supernatural is widely claimed as being the kiss
of death to any idea that otherwise may possibly be addressed by
science. And many members here champion that it should be the kiss
of death. So I find it a bit shocking that anyone can claim human
minds are supernatural phenomena and go completely unchallenged.
Someone who does want to challenge this claim of the supernatural of
course will then say it does all come from genetics - it all comes
from nature and natural processes. But the onus is then upon that
person to explain how a design recognizer appears in the human brain
in the absence of the alleged supernatural influence.
At the very least it implies there ought to be a mathematics
undergirding the design detection. The fact we may not have
discovered the math is no proof the math doesn't exist. Wishing the
phenomena onto a supernatural basis seems to me to be more of a God of
the gaps type thing to do.
And there we go. People reject ideas because they smell of being a God
of the gaps type of idea. And why is the human mind suddenly ok to
be delegated to the gap when it is not ok for other things to be in
the gap?
I would be happier with someone trying to propose a "mathematical
proof" of the impossibility of a design detection algorithm. That at
least would be a rational approach! Instead, invoking the
supernatural to explain the human mind's abilities seems to me to be
sort of brushing it under the rug to get rid of it. Very easy for a
religionist to do. Its the last thing I would expect a scientist to
do. I've been waiting for members to reject the notion and they
haven't (AFAIK).
But if one could show that a design recognition algorithm is
mathematically impossible, and if one also rejects supernatural
influence, then one has a _real_ _mystery_ on one's hands. Horns of
a dilemma?
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know quite _where_ to ask my question. But I am bothered
>> by the notion that some on the list seem to have taken the position
>> that the human mind's ability to recognize design patterns does not
>> come from genetics or from nature.
>> Instead some seem to feel the ability comes from God and is thus
>> supernatural in origin. That seems to go along with the idea that the
>> human mind is supernatural in general.
>>
>> First, a disclaimer. I didnt originate the ideas I am referring to.
>> List members did that. Second, I'd prefer to focus on the biology, not
>> on the human mind and other subjects. But, when talking about Adam
>> and Eve the very nature of what a human being is comes into play. Is
>> that beyond biology, or not?
>>
>> I'm not taking any position on this, but I find it interesting as an
>> idea. The idea that human psychology is a study of the supernatural?
>> (of a supernatural phenomena as opposed to a natural phenomena?) I
>> suspect most psychologists would reject that notion. Wouldn't they?
>>
>> But, if it *were* true, then is it worth asking what folks believe
>> about the population from whence came the first true humans? Was
>> this "embellishment" with a supernatural mind (or whatever one would
>> call it - and I am uncertain as to what the concept should be
>> labelled) was this embellishment applied to a group (a whole
>> population), or was it applied to a single pair as some theological
>> views would claim? If to a single pair, then did the rest of the
>> population not get it at all? (meaning, perhaps, that the non-humans
>> in the group did not have a soul? But Adam and Eve did have a soul?)
>>
>> And the big question is why is this cognitive ability not passed down
>> genetically? Are any reasons put forth?
>>
>> One also has to ask whether the ability to recognize design patterns
>> perhaps precedes the first humans and was in the general population,
>> or even in the population of non-human primates or even other species.
>> Is it really associated only with soulful minds?
>>
>> I suspect some may think this line of inquiry not worthy of
>> investigation. But it seems to me that for James's concern to be
>> addressed one must look at the issue of just what it really is, in
>> the minds of members, that made modern humans human. At what point did
>> humans get truly human abilities and even souls? Are souls real? Do
>> they correlate with cognitive ability? In other words, what criteria
>> would one use to set aside notions of deism and move toward a
>> naturalistic theism? The answer to that is surely affected by
>> whether one believes what one is interacting with across the dinner
>> table is a supernatural phenomena or a purely natural phenomena.
>>
>> And again, if the essentials of the human mind don't spring forth from
>> the genes, then how can science even investigate human origins
>> whatsoever? Can anyone see why I have difficulty with the list
>> discussion here at the beginning of 2009?
>> I am worried about the ASA because it seems the list has stumbled into
>> territory, both theologically and scientifically, that I had never
>> even heard of previously.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:46 AM, James Patterson
>> <james000777@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > David wrote:
>> >
>> > -- do you accept the evidence for an old universe and earth?
>> >
>> > Yes, absolutely.
>> >
>> > If so, aren't you being inconsistent in rejecting the conclusions
>> > population
>> > geneticists draw from the MHC data based on the presumption you've drawn
>> > from the Bible that there must have been only one pair from whom all
>> > present
>> > humans directly are genetically descended? The YEC's, after all, make
>> > exactly the same argument about the "days" of creation, the age of the
>> > earth, and the nature of Noah's flood.
>> >
>> > No, I don't think so, not at all. First, and as I said, I don't think
>> > MHC
>> > data should be used much, if at any, for this kind of thing. I am also
>> > not
>> > sure how that ties into the next part of your statement. But the
>> > evidence
>> > for the Big Bang, the age of the universe, the age of the earth, that's
>> > all
>> > "hard" science – physics and cosmology. It is much more defined and
>> > clear
>> > than the biological sciences. It's very hard to argue with mathematical
>> > equations like those that define our universe. However, the math used in
>> > Ayala's paper is *much* less clear, and the math used in the entire
>> > field of
>> > population genetics isn't nailed down yet…just look at some of the
>> > references. We don't understand this field well enough in general, and I
>> > don't accept or understand the science well enough to take a position
>> > that
>> > it is impossible to have an n=2. I think that some very good evidence
>> > for
>> > their being an n=2 is that is what the Bible tells us, and it seems
>> > reasonably clear that an n of 2 is what is indicated – I don't see a way
>> > around that. The strongest argument I see for there being some other
>> > answer
>> > to this is Dick Fischer's argument that it was an n=2, but they were the
>> > first ancient Hebrews, not the first man. However, I have to state that
>> > I
>> > don't accept that position (although I haven't read his book yet, it's
>> > on
>> > order Dick). The Bible seems generally clear that it refers to the
>> > origins
>> > of mankind – all of mankind.
>> >
>> > The essential foundation of my argument is that in general, what the
>> > Bible
>> > says and what science says agree. YOM doesn't mean a literal day. The
>> > Hebrews didn't mean a global flood. How Genesis is interpreted is
>> > obviously
>> > not easy, and not clear, or we wouldn't be here talking about it.
>> >
>> > -- you say, ". . . we see the emergence of man in the correct *general*
>> > location, from (at least) a small population, sometime in the past." I
>> > used
>> > to find this kind of argument from RTB et al. somewhat persuasive.
>> >
>> > However, let's be honest: central Africa is not the same "general
>> > location"
>> > as Mesopotamia,
>> >
>> > Yes, it is. First off, I think it' East Africa. But I'm not going to
>> > split
>> > hairs. And even if you draw that circle down to Tanzania and Ethiopia,
>> > it's
>> > still in the same general location. We do not understand mans origins
>> > well
>> > enough to put him in anything other than Africa. That's fine. It's not
>> > Europe, it's not Australia, it's not America, it's not Russia, it's not
>> > China, or India. God said he created man west of Eden. Africa is west of
>> > Eden. Sure, most of it is also south…but it's still west. I don't really
>> > think that's worth belaboring…it agrees well enough. Science puts the
>> > origins of man in Africa, and the first civilizations in Mesopotamia.
>> > The
>> > Bible put's the creation of man west of Eden, and Eden in Mesopotamia.
>> > That
>> > agrees well enough for me. Here's the map again, since it wasn't in this
>> > email. http://www.pattersonhistory.net/map01.jpg
>> >
>> > and "sometime in the past" -- if that is 150 kya or so even for
>> > Mitochondrial Eve -- doesn't fit with the Bible's description of the
>> > culture
>> > into which Adam's immediate descendants were placed.
>> >
>> > I am working on that presently…and answering this thread is detracting
>> > me
>> > from that work…
>> >
>> > Moreover, "(at least) a small population" isn't two individuals. I am
>> > no
>> > expert either, but my sense is that for the MHC data to be accounted for
>> > by
>> > a single pair, you'd either have to have (a) diversification of the MHC
>> > at a
>> > truly astonishing (not just 'fast') rate; or (b) a whole set of miracles
>> > not
>> > mentioned in scripture.
>> >
>> > Not mentioned???? God creates man and woman, breaths their spiritual
>> > nature
>> > into them, and you tell me that's not mentioned? Come now. He doesn't
>> > give
>> > out details on how He did it…or what He did. If so the world would be a
>> > much
>> > simpler place. But I think it's clear – He did something.
>> >
>> > Isn't it more parsimonious to suggest, as John Stott did in his Romans
>> > commentary, that the "image of God" and "original sin" are essentially
>> > spiritual qualities rather than genetic ones? It seems to me that this
>> > removes much of the burden of trying to tie Adam to the genetic record.
>> >
>> > That's not a bad point, but parsimony can be taken only so far. Occam's
>> > razor can slice down to the bone of metaphysical naturalism, if you let
>> > it.
>> >
>> > Perhaps Adam lived in (or was removed from the "garden" into) a context
>> > where there were other "humans," but this says nothing of the spiritual
>> > aspects of those other homo sapiens who shared the physical world with
>> > Adam
>> > and his descendants for a time.
>> >
>> > Well, I don't like that either, but I haven't been able to conceive of a
>> > way
>> > to pull these threads together more tightly without resorting to
>> > presuppositional logic that ultimately leads to YECism.
>> >
>> > I don't deny that PC is a tough position. The one thing that brought me
>> > here
>> > to this position is the strong Biblical foundation, and the thing that
>> > keeps
>> > me here is that there is a model. Models can be revised based on new
>> > data,
>> > and other opinions and interpretations can be incorporated. This is not
>> > true
>> > of YEC – the entire foundation of their position is based on a
>> > unbalanced
>> > premise that only the Bible is true, and not science (at least not
>> > anyone's
>> > science but their own). The PC position is balanced: both Bible and
>> > science.
>> > The TE position is (in my opinion) a bit unbalanced the other way – too
>> > much
>> > reliance on only natural explanations. I know most of you don't agree
>> > with
>> > that, but hey if I wasn't here testing your positions, you wouldn't be
>> > having so much fun. J
>> >
>> > God bless, JP
>> >
>> > ---
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Associate Professor of Law
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM, James Patterson
>> > <james000777@bellsouth.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > All,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I've finally been able to get back to this thread (and sub-threads) and
>> > read
>> > them. I wanted to go read the Ayala manuscript first. I have read it as
>> > well
>> > as the comments on the article, and a few other related articles.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I must also classify myself as "not an expert" in this field. However, I
>> > find it quite interesting to look at how often the words "presume" and
>> > "presumption" are used in the Ayala article. If you look at this article
>> > specifically and the field as a whole, there is significant controversy
>> > over
>> > the various models and how to interpret the results…more so than I am
>> > comfortable with. This is reflected in the comment in reply to the Ayala
>> > article, as well as several other articles (see below).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All that as an aside. The main issue is the size of the "n" required to
>> > pass
>> > thru a bottleneck. Ayala argues there wasn't even a bottleneck, but I
>> > think
>> > most would agree there is plenty of evidence that there was at least one
>> > if
>> > not more bottlenecks. So I am not going to belabor that issue.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ayala's point is that, for a given chunk of DNA, including mtDNA chunks,
>> > you
>> > may be able to trace that chunk back to a common ancestor. However, the
>> > next
>> > chunk of DNA will be from a *different* ancestor, not the same one,
>> > implying
>> > not one, but a population of "Eves". I am NOT familiar enough to state
>> > for
>> > certainty, but I thought that the mtDNA was looked at more as a whole
>> > than
>> > other DNA? It's size is about 15-17 kbp, and codes for 37 genes.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > When we get to the point of whether there was a n=2 vs an n=X, Ayala
>> > puts X
>> > at ~100,000. He describes how it would be impossible for all the alleles
>> > of
>> > the MHC to survive a population smaller than (I think) about 10,000
>> > sexually
>> > active humans, which equates to a total population that is of course
>> > larger.
>> > The issue here of course is the MHC region. If one is going to look at
>> > comparative regions and molecular clocks, it seems to me that the MHC
>> > has
>> > got to be the *worst* possible choice to use. Within the field of
>> > immunology, this region of the genetic code is sometimes called the
>> > G.O.D.
>> > (interesting, yes?) region, for Generator (or Generation) Of Diversity.
>> > Mutation rates here can be quite rapid. See the Hogstrand or Carrington
>> > articles below.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Given that, Ayala's work does not seem to distinguish itself any greater
>> > than other studies on this topic. And that gets to the heart of the
>> > matter:
>> > From a strict, naturalistic, population genetics viewpoint, a bottleneck
>> > of
>> > an n=2 is unacceptable. The only way to have an n=2 bottleneck is if
>> > this
>> > couple were quite special in some way or ways, and that isn't "natural".
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank God, I am not a strict naturalist. J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The integration of science and faith is why we are here. You may want to
>> > find a strict natural explanation of everything, because you think
>> > that's
>> > the way God works at all times. If you extrapolate this to the extreme,
>> > the
>> > TE viewpoint becomes the DE viewpoint. I think I mentioned this in
>> > another
>> > thread recently. At the very least, I think you should at least consider
>> > this to be a prime example of Russell's OSP hard at work. You may be
>> > able to
>> > track the lineage of the descent of man genetically, but tracking the
>> > hand
>> > of God is another matter.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It becomes very difficult, very quickly, to reconcile God's creation of
>> > our
>> > spiritual selves (as well as original sin) with a (large) population of
>> > humans that evolved slowly. No matter how you slice it, God's handiwork
>> > is
>> > present. And if we are going to presume the hand of God being involved,
>> > then
>> > strict naturalistic explanations will ultimately fail.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > However, if you *presume* that God was involved, and that God created
>> > Adam
>> > and Eve (as the Bible tells us), and look at what the natural sciences
>> > show
>> > us, we see the emergence of man in the correct *general* location, from
>> > (at
>> > least) a small population, sometime in the past. How exactly, may remain
>> > unclear. We will have to save the time question for later, tho. J
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If you choose not to believe that God was intimately involved with the
>> > creation of man through Adam and Eve, then that's your choice. As for me
>> > and
>> > my family, we choose God.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > God bless,
>> >
>> > James P
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > A few interesting references:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gibbons A, (1993). Mitochondrial Eve refuses to die. Science,
>> > 259(5099):1249-1250.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ayala F, (1995). The Myth of Eve: Molecular Biology and Human Origins.
>> > Science, 270(5244):1930-1936.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Erlich HA, Bergstrom TF, Stoneking M, and Gyllensten U (1996). HLA
>> > Sequence
>> > Polymorphism and the Origin of Humans (in reply to Ayala's article).
>> > Science, 274(5292):1552-1554.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Watson E, Forster P, Richards M, Bandelt HJ, (1997). Mitochondrial
>> > footprints of human expansions in Africa. Am J Hum Genet, 61(3):691-704.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Carrington M, (1999). Recombination within the human MHC. Immunological
>> > Reviews, 167(1):245-256.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gray M, Burger G, Lang BF, (1999). Mitochondrial Evolution. Science,
>> > 283(5407):1476-1481.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Högstrand K, Böhme J, (1999). Gene conversion can create new MHC
>> > alleles.
>> > Immunological Reviews, 167(1):305-317.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Cann R, (2001). Genetic Clues to Dispersal in Human Populations:
>> > Retracing
>> > the Past from the Present. Science, 291(5509): 1742-1748.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Stumpf M and Goldstein D, (2001). Genealogical and Evolutionary
>> > Inference
>> > with the Human Y Chromosome. Science, 291(5509):1738-1742.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Zimmerman S, (2001). Population size at the time of mitochondrial eve.
>> > Human
>> > Evolution, 16(2):117-124.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Curnoe D, Thorne A, (2003) Number of ancestral human species: a
>> > molecular
>> > perspective. Homo, 53(3):201-224.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hagelberg E, (2003). Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity?
>> > Implications for Mitochondrial Eve. Trends Genet, 19(2):84-90.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex#MHC_evolution_and_allelic_diversity
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> 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 Tue Feb 24 01:14:21 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 24 2009 - 01:14:21 EST
