I think Christian theologians debunk themselves. When I read Arminian and Calvinist arguments I agree with them both when they criticize each other, as I do with Catholic versus Protestant arguments, and liberalism versus fundamentalist arguments. When debunking Christianity as an outsider, I merely have to state why I agree with their criticisms of each other. They do my work for me, for the most part. And they know that which they argue against very well, too.
In my book I utilize the arguments of liberal Christian scholars against evangelical Christianity over and over. They make my case for me. Evangelical (or fundamentalist) Christianity does not have a leg to stand on after the liberals are done with it.
But what about liberal Christianity?
Liberal Catholic scholar John F. Haught, former Chair and Professor in the Department of Theology at Georgetown University from 1970-2005, and one of the world’s leading thinkers in the area of science and religion, thinks his version of faith survives the onslaught of the so-called “New Atheists.” In a book titled, God and the New Atheism, Haught takes aim at Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. Against Dawkins he claims that God cannot be dismissed as a delusion; against Harris he claims that faith is not the enemy of reason; and against Hitchens he claims that religion does not poison everything.
In the Introduction Haught argues that a proper understanding of God, faith, and theology is something these critics are woefully lacking in, and as such their critique of Christian religion is “theological unchallenging.” (p. xi). Haught argues that when it comes to the Christian notion of God the understanding of the New Atheists “has almost nothing to do with what Christian faith and theology today understand by that name.” (p. xv). When it comes to understanding religious faith their views are “at the same unscholarly level as the unreflective, superstitious, and literalist religiosity of those they criticize.” (p. xiii). Haught faults them for debating with “extremists” like creationists, fundamentalists, terrorists and intelligent design advocates “rather than any major theologians.” (p. xv).
In Haught’s words the New Atheists (including Daniel Dennett at this point) think “science alone can tell us what religion is really about, and it can provide better answers than theology to every important question people ask.” (p. x).
In a few posts I’m going to look more closely at Dr. Haught’s arguments.
Here is a logic puzzle. You are walking down a road to a town. You come to a fork in the road. Standing there are two men. You already know that one of them always lies and one of them always tells the truth. What one question can you ask one of them that will give you the information you need to choose the right road?
The answer is "which road would he tell me to take?" and when you find out, you go the other way. Now lets add three more liars for a total of four liars and one truthful. At this point, it becomes unsolvable. How can you determine who is telling the truth and who is not?
Now Imagine we replace the town with Heaven, and replace the men with a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim and add a road for each. How can you determine who is telling the truth and who is not? All you can do is just pick a direction and go. That doesn't seem like something that was set up by the supreme intellect in the universe. That strategy violates the principle of minimizing as much uncertainty as possible to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. That is a strategy that wasn't thought out very well.
The
Secular Philosophy Blog is doing a weekly
Root of All Evil series of blogs on this question and has invited a number of thinkers to address it, including me. Here is
Michael Shermer's contribution. The contribution of
Christian de Duve, the 1977 Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine
can be found here. Others will appear on a weekly basis.
David P. Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta, wrote an opinion piece for
USA Today (Sept. 15, 2008) about the status of women leaders among evangelicals and Palin's potential as the vice-President and later as President of America. Her most rigorous supporters are evangelicals, but Gushee asks whether they have thought through their own theology when supporting her? He asks the following questions. Evangelical, want to give them a go?:
• Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?
• Would Palin be acceptable as vice president because she would still be under the ultimate authority of McCain as president, like the structure of authority that occurs in some of your churches? Have you fully come to grips with the fact that if after his election McCain were to die, Palin would be in authority over every male in the USA as president?
• If you agree that God can call a woman to serve as president, does this have any implications for your views on women's leadership in church life? Would you be willing to vote for a qualified woman to serve as pastor of your church? If not, why not?
• Do you believe that Palin is under the authority of her husband as head of the family? If so, would this authority spill over into her role as vice president?
• Do you believe that women carry primary responsibility for the care of children in the home? If so, does this affect your support for Palin? If not, are you willing to change your position and instead argue for flexibility in the distribution of child care responsibilities according to the needs of the family?
Once the God (or Gods (if your sect is Trinitarian)) speak via the written word (the Bible), divine truth is set for time and eternity. Since God is viewed as absolute truth, he and his “truth” are forever frozen in time and, as we have seen again and again here at DC, the God is so dogmatically connected to the ancient Near Eastern view of time an space, to admit change is to give God basically a theological death sentence.
Just as the Judaisms circled their wagons to apologetically defend their theology against the new Christian heresy with the Talmud, so to the original defense of Christianity was not against the non-believing secular word, but against believers be they fellow Christians (Heretics) or other God fearing people labeled “pagan” (a derogatory term used to belittle other God fearers just as African American were commonly called Niggers).
Since God acts and can only live via theological interpretations outside the Bible, to interpret an event in the wrong way can damage or even destroy faith. However, Christians have circled their wagons and issued dogmatic statements of faith called creeds drawn form selective readings of the Bible. This positive safe guard ensures that only positive or faith building interpretations are fed to the faithful laity it keeping all believers on the Yellow Brick Road to Oz (Heaven).
This can readily be seen in your local Mormon missionaries who are forbidden by their State Mission President not to read any book or view any video that is not officially approved by the LDS Church itself. All Mormons missionaries are familiar with the teaching that all non Mormons “lie in wait to deceive” (I attended the locale Ward here in Greenville for 20 years, though I never joined).
Likewise, the Southern Baptist purged all their colleges and universities of “liberal” professors when the conservatives took over the Convention in the late 80’s. Luckily, schools like Furman University saw the proverbial “hand writing on the wall” and left the control of the Convention for academic freedom. Once all dissenting professors were removed from questioning worked out Biblical dogmatics, the new Biblical patriarchs elites turned inward and terminate all women professors; not based on academic ability, but on St. Paul’s bias theology of Genesis that only men are created in God’s image and the woman was tricked by the talking serpent who later mislead the man. Thus, Biblical theology demands that gullible women be removed from areas were they may mislead men, especially those preparing to serve St. Paul’s God.
As a one time student at Bob Jones University I found it very ironic that while the University was anti Communist, they maintained their rigorous fundamentalism in exactly the same way dictators control the minds of their people (one thinks here of the policies of North Korea‘s Kim Jong ll). The rules dictated which radio stations students could listen to (I received 50 demerits for listen to Loretta Lynn sing a Gospel song on the local country station WESC), which church you could attend (a number of protestant churches are always off limits meaning a student could be expelled or a faculty or staff could be fired for attending).
Since the doctrine of Original Sin was pushed to its extreme, all students had to register for a one hour Discipline Committee per week each semester where all were students were required to weekly check a computer printout to see if his or her name had been list by one unknowingly being turned in by another student (doing God’s will). In other words, Original Sin for BJU meant you were considered guilty until your could prove yourself innocent.
Hatred for the secular world was only exceeded by the Universities hatred for other Christian denominations which the late Bob Jones Jr. considered “sold out wholesale to compromise and apostasy”. As such, the only man to exceed the deception of the Pope in Rome was Billy Graham. The last time Billy Graham had a crusade in Greenville, the University made it plain that any student who attended any of the services would be expelled. In fact, Bob Jones Jr. told the student body at chapel (I was there) that “Billy Graham has done more damage to Christianity than any man who has ever lived”. As such, all incoming Freshman had to attend a week long orientation fueled with anti Graham rhetoric.
As seen in the notice at the top of this post, all reading material was highly censored. The head of the Church History department told his un-graduate and graduate students that there never has been a truthful church history ever written. To lock this in, tenure for any professor at Bob Jones University a yearly signing a of a dogmatic creedal statement which demands adherence to the fundamental of the truths of the faith as listed in the university's creedal confession was required.
As Ed Babinski has often pointed out (now so in the Foreword to John’s newest book), all Christian sects including those running colleges believing the Bible as absolute truth, that is, believing a God breath verbally inspirited Bible as a fundamental bases for all faith and life only mellow with age. So be it Harvard or Bob Jones University, truth can only be denied for so long by manipulating the facts even if that be considered God‘s Word the Bible.
As sure as liberalism is a creeping indicator of reality; that truth demands attention, so to must all preachers and schools sooner or latter must face the fact that the only thing keeping God alive is yesterday’s faith deemed worth fighting for. It is in this sense that faith and hope are poor substitutes for truth, plus this new puppet labled "truth" must now dance to the tune church dogmatics. However, even when faith is renamed truth, objectivity can only continue to be denied in the trust that a positive interpretation can be maintained. Moreover, the circle of faith as sown to the masses is proof that circular reasoning has its place in the absolute truth of God and the Bible.
End the final analysis, just as the Jesus movements formed sects of emergent Christianity only to create dogmatic creedal institutions called churches which over time liberalized in the face of future facts, so too do new groups spring off from the stagnating formal churches to form new sects who, at least for a time are on fire for the truth and Jesus. But just as the old maxim states that “An apple does not fall far from the tree” so also these sect end up becoming the very thing that they despised in the first place. But then reality and objective truth can be denied for only so long!
Plan on coming out if you can this Saturday or Sunday. I'd like to meet my readers.
Click on the image to blow it up.
I'll be speaking about my book, Why I Became an Atheist. If you're part of a freethinking group and want a good speaker I know of one *ahem*. ;-) If you're part of a Christian group and want to see a good debate, ask me!
This is the date seven years ago that Sam Harris started writing his book,
The End of Faith. At least something good came from that horrible and despicable cowardly act of terrorism.
Christian radio host Justin Brierley does an awesome job interviewing people for his UK based weekly radio show. He interviewed me some time ago. Lately he's interviewed Norman Geisler, Alvin Plantinga, Gary Habermas, and William Lane Craig, who spoke about me in his July 19th interview to be
found here (just scroll down).
Justin picks up the topic leading up to me at about the 1 hour and 13 minute marker.
In speaking about those of us who share our deconversion stories, Craig thinks our "reverse testimonies" are "very powerful," and they make him wonder if he himself is deluded! From now on if people question the power of a deconversion story, let's quote Craig!
Craig goes on to say that if you look at these testimonies closely we didn't leave for intellectual reasons. Instead we left for emotional reasons "having to do with a negative experience" of some sort. To "make it look credible" he says, "they [we] will emphasize the intellectual aspects of it."
In this context Justin mentions my name and Dr. Craig said "exactly," as if I am a typical case of what he just talked about. Craig says: "The merit of John Loftus's testimony is that he's candid about his adultery and pornography and the way he felt burned and abandoned by the local church when he fell into sin; that it was really these things which prompted him to leave the faith, not the intellectual problems."
Craig does admit the same things can be said for Christians who "came to Christ for personal or emotional reasons," however, "it's more credible if you present yourself as having gone through a long intellectual search." Then speaking to Christians he says, "you gotta be really careful about these things because sometimes they're not always the whole truth."
Craig confesses that he himself did not go through a long intellectual search, and he doesn't tell people that he did, because "it's just not true." "That wasn't my experience," he says, "and I want to be candid about that."
Craig himself grounds his faith in a supposed veridical experience with the Holy Spirit, not intellectual reasons anyway.
You can listen to it yourself.
In any case, let me comment. In my book I am honest and candid that I had some negative experiences which shook my faith and goaded me into searching for the truth. Where Craig comes up with "pornography" as a factor, I haven't a clue. I shared my experiences because, as Craig says of himself, it wasn't due entirely to a long intellectual search, and so like him, "it's just not true" of me to say that it was. Like him, "that wasn't my experience," on the other side, either.
But neither was my change of mind due entirely because of my experiences. Part of my story includes the challenges of harmonizing science with the Genesis creation accounts. Part of my story includes the problem of evil. Part of my story includes the lack of communication (or illumination) of the Holy Spirit in the lives of church people I associated with. In other words, yes, I was candid about it all. But it misrepresents the facts to say it was purely negative experiences that led me away from the fold. Why should people like Craig believe what I say about my experiences but reject out of hand what I say about my reasons? I said that I could not reconcile everything I had experienced and everything I had learned with my faith. It was a total blow to my faith and it included both my experiences and my studies.
I remember talking with a woman before I had left the fold who told me she had a terrible experience which caused her to want to reject Christianity (this was years ago and I forgot what kind of negative experience she told me). So she read everything she could get her hands on to find reasons not to believe. In the end, she told me, she just could not change her mind. In the end, she just had to continue believing.
Her story was not my experience if you've read my story. I did not try to leave the fold. I had spent too much time and too much money into my education that I was not going to throw it all away because of a negative experience or two. I'm way too stubborn for that. My whole life was wrapped around being a minister, all of my friends and colleagues were Christians, and I was hoping to teach full time at a Christian college. So even with the negative experiences I had, I was not going to go down without a hard fight, kicking and screaming against the very thought of leaving my faith.
But this woman is an example of the honesty you see in my book. She had to be honest with herself despite the negative experiences. So did I. The way she solved her questions is not the way I solved mine. But I can say we were both honest with ourselves. I would not have left the faith if the reasons were not there, despite my experiences. Period! Say what you will. But if my story has the merit that Craig says it does in being honest with why I left the fold, then do not apply that merit selectively. Apply it across the board to everything I said.
Thanks to someone named Helen for telling me of this interview.
Yep, watch for it, perhaps tomorrow. We can't seem to find the bug so it's time for a new look to our Blog.
Our technical staff is working on this problem. ;-)
When presented with a choice of outcomes the rational decision maker will choose the outcome with a positive payoff, but not God.
- God is Omnipotent
- God made the universe
- God made the world
- God made Adam and Eve.
- God is Omniscient.
- The best way to understand something is to build it.
God must have known the properties and tolerances of everything he created, just like a baker and just like an engineer. Since he is omniscient and has a plan, the events that played out in the Garden Of Eden should have come as no surprise to Him.
DECISION AND GAME THEORY
Decision Theory and Game theory were developed to help make predictions about outcomes and analyze how certain outcomes come about. It is used heavily in economics and evolutionary biology. Using one aspect of them, we can assign relative values to events, organize them in a matrix, iterate through all the possible outcomes and derive a value that is equal to the relative value of the outcome. The outcome with highest value is the "dominant strategy", any outcome lower that that dominant strategy is called a "dominated strategy".
"Stochastic Dominance: If action A has a better payoff than action B under each individual state of nature, then we say that action B is stochastically dominated by action A. If the payoff matrix truly represents every thing the decision maker hopes (or fears) to receive from the decision in question, then no rational decision maker will ever choose to perform action B."
Whalen, Thomas. "Payoff Matrix and Decision Rule", Whalens.org. Date of Internet Publication Unknown. Sponsoring organization unknown. 07 Sep. 2008. [http://www.whalens.org/Sofia/choice/matrix.htm].
OTHER RELATED LINKS
- Wikipedia, Stochastic Dominance
- Answers.com, Stochastic Dominance
IF ADAM HAD GOTTEN SICK AND DIED AFTER EVE HAD GOTTEN PREGNANT, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE LEARNED THEIR LESSON AND ADAMS OFFSPRING WOULD HAVE POPULATED THE WORLD ANYWAY.
Adam and Eve are like a cake. The Baker knows what it takes to make them turn out a certain way. God must have known what it takes to make Adam and Eve turn out a certain way. For example if god had made the fruit smell like week old road kill with maggots living in it, chances are they would not have eaten the fruit or would have gotten sick and died. If they had gotten sick, threw up and one of them died, then that probably would have taught them the lesson God wanted them to learn without any ambiguity, but since the fruit was fashioned in a way that appealed to them, they ate it. In fact god built desire into Eve and therefore into Adam (since Eve was derived from Adam) and since she didn't know the difference between good and evil, she couldn't know that disobeying god was evil. However, she did have the desire and an agent telling her what she desired and liked to hear (1, 2, 3). Liking something is neither right or wrong, good or evil, it just simply is. Separate the "like" from what is right and wrong. Good and Evil, for the most part, are cultural judgments. They underwent some sort of transformation which caused them to realize they were naked, good from evil and introduced sin into themselves and therefore indirectly to the world.
KEY EVENTS IN THE FALL OF MAN RELATIVE TO THIS ARTICLE
- God made the man
- planted the garden
- then made the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil grow in the garden
- and placed the man in it
- warned the man about the tree
- by telling him he would die using the word die in an ambiguous non-standard way.
in that order.
2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
2:8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
2:9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
2:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.
2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
DERIVING THE NORMAL-FORM GAME / PAYOFF MATRIX
To derive the Normal-form game payoff matrix, we use analytical schemes (AKA "thinking tools") known as a Time-line chart, a weighted ranking matrix, a causal diagram and an event tree. It would take too much time and space to do some of them here, but I have already done some of them in my other articles referenced below. However, since they aren't very complicated, we can do them in our heads for now and create the matrices. We broke the events down and sorted them chronologically. Then we made an event tree, a causal diagram and then assigned values to them in the weighted ranking scale.
In the weighted ranking, it is necessary to place a value on events relative to each other. In other words, an obedient Adam in the garden is more valuable than a disobedient Adam in the garden, so the Obedient Adam gets a higher value. Systematically iterating through the possible combination's yielded the weighted ranking scale shown below.
Now we derive the columns and rows based on the causal flow diagram and the event trees to create our Normal-form game / Payoff Matrix.
In the first row and first column cell, we can see that the combination of "No Adam" ( equivalent to 0 according to our weighted ranking) and the "Tree in" [the garden] (equivalent to 1 according to our weighted ranking) results in a score of 0, 1 for a total value of 1. In the second cell in that row, we get a score of 0, 0 for a total value of zero. The chart below reflects the total value with regard to Adam in each row. As we can see, God clearly chose the worst outcome for Adam in his plan.
The question we are left with after thinking this through is "why?". Some possible reasons are
- that the story is folklore
- that god artificially created a problem so he could solve it as Jesus
I'll explore more of them in my follow on articles.
REFERENCE AND FURTHER READING
Articles supporting Non-Historicity of Adam and Eve
A. Disqualifying Adam And Eve
Articles supporting Internal Inconsistency in the story of the Fall of Man
1. Gen. 2:16-3:24, Adam And Eve Were Mentally Incompetent
2. Gen. 2:7-3:6, God Should Have Known That Adam Would Disobey
3. Gen. 2:7-3:6, Adams Sin Was An Emergent Behavior
4. Gen. 2:6-9, God Ignored Adams Admonishment Option
PRIOR COMMENTS FROM FIRST POST DATE
This post was reformatted and the comments were lost. It was reposted and the comments were included as part of the text.
bahramthered said...
How many times are we going to debate the graden around here?
Lets move onto something new before people start moving onto new blogs.
3:47 PM, September 07, 2008
oliver said...
While I do appreciate the use of Game Theory, we have to realize that Game Theory will only convince those who are Game Theorist (i.e. not people like my mother who will read the Genesis account and then tell me a beautiful story about why it's bad to disobey God.)
4:20 PM, September 07, 2008
charles w. said...
Thanks for another useless post, Lee.
4:25 PM, September 07, 2008
lee randolph said...
No one is forcing you to do anything, and I recommend that you read other blogs to make you a more well rounded person. Are blogs mutually exclusive? If you don't understand the significance of something, just ask.
I'm writing for the fence-sitter and casual believer.
There's no point in preaching to the choir is there?
do me a favor. Write out romans five (so you understand it as well as possible), then cross out all references to adam and tell me what you have left over.
FYI, I have a plan and a strategy for this argument that takes me out to thanksgiving if I do one a week. After that I'll move on to Cain and Abel and keep on until I get to the end of Gen. 11.
So I guess I won't be your favorite blogger.
In my opinion christianity is never going to be debunked until the source is discredited. Fighting a battle on multiple fronts, rarely succeeds. Debating hard to grasp concepts that leave wiggle room for christians, in my view, is not going to do it, especially when some of them don't get that fact that god having a plan and being omniscient negates free will.
Adam is at the root of christianity. As long as there is credibility for adam, there is credibility for christianity.
4:36 PM, September 07, 2008
lee randolph said...
forewarned is forearmed.
Just so you know,
here is my plan for "the fall of man" articles for the coming months. the date in brackets is the estimated publish date, the name of the article follows along with its viewpoint.
[20080914] Blaming the Victim, psychology related
[20080921] God Caused The Problem of Sin so He could Solve it, psychology related
[20080928] Talking Snake, humor, paleontology related
[20081005] God Was Not Omniscient in the Garden, Logic Related
[20081012] Comparing The History Of The Needle, anthropolgy related
[20081019] Comparing The History of Agriculture, anthropology related
[20081026] Sex and Death, You Can't Argue With Success, psychology related
[20081102] Adam and Eve are FOLKLORE, summary of the previous articles
[20081109] Analyzing Romans 5, argument analysis, informal logic related
4:49 PM, September 07, 2008
lee randolph said...
Hi Oliver,
I'm not a game theorist either, but if I get it, so will other people.
I think that you do a dis-service to your grandmother by underestimating her.
people surprise you when you think you know what they're capable of, which weakens your position.
the take home is that we can see by thinking it through, that the outcome was what was intended. Now we have to figure out why.
and besides that, I'm trying to introduce some tools of thinking and demonstrate how to apply them to real life problems.
5:12 PM, September 07, 2008
richard said...
This theory and the post in general is nonsensical to say the least!
6:23 PM, September 07, 2008
lee randolph said...
Hi Richard,
well, you did say the least,
so why is it 'nonsensical'?
6:33 PM, September 07, 2008
stan, the half-truth teller said...
I'm just guessing, but perhaps Richard thinks it nonsensical because he doesn't get it?
Perhaps he doesn't understand how it could be that god's alleged decision to create this world is worse than choosing not to create anything at all.
Perhaps he doesn't realize that because he chose to create (assuming the existence of god for the sake of argument), god is culpable in both the successes and failures of his creations (if he is omnipotent and omniscient).
Perhaps, rather than any of this, he is lazy and a fool.
--
Stan
8:42 PM, September 07, 2008
bahramthered said...
Lee; I like this blog since I've been here I've learned a lot. New arguments and such.
But still on the garden I havn't learned anything in the last two posts and honestly am starting to get bored with it.
I don't know about anyone else but I don't have time to keep coming back to blog that's not exploring something new.
But it's your blog (among others).
8:48 PM, September 07, 2008
lee randolph said...
Hi Bahram,
what topics would like to see explored?
brainstorm a little bit, give me some topics.
maybe i have something in draft that I can finish up post for you. I have lots of scraps of ideas and notes in my googledocs.
12:20 AM, September 08, 2008
tigg13 said...
I say, keep it up Lee!
Providing several arguments from different sides of the question only solidifies your position.
And providing alternate arguments just makes those of us who find ourselves crossing swords with christians better prepared.
1:26 AM, September 08, 2008
lee randolph said...
tiggers are wonderful things!
your check is in the mail.
;-)
6:42 AM, September 08, 2008
bahramthered said...
Tig; last couple of these feel the same, just explained differently. Least to me.
Lee;
So far your adam theory been intresting I just think it's kinda beating a dead horse at this point.
Topics I'd like to explore;
Why the bible is so pro slavery.
God's war with the egyptian gods (I only know a little based on a couple semi factual movies)
Some of the more ridiculous genisis claims (always fun). Mainly what happens after the ark (Like a drunk Noah cursing one of his kids into slavery forever and god backing him on it)
And exactly how god reconciles the claim that witchcraft (the wiccan kind) is evil
7:25 AM, September 08, 2008
lee randolph said...
Hi bahram,
if you want to see what has been written on DC about a topic, you can use the search field in the top left of the screen.
- here is a link to all the articles with a "slavery" label
- I've never heard of gods war with egyptian gods, maybe you could be more specific?
- I plan on doing an article on why the noahs ark is folklore, but you can see what my schedule is so it'll be a while
- do a search for witches in the search field.
another option is that you can research one of these topics on your own and submit an article to us for publishing. If you're interested in that, I'll give you an email address to submit it to.
8:15 AM, September 08, 2008
rich said...
Hi Lee,
I wanted to explore a possibility that the assigned values for Adam in obey and Adam in disobey. If these values are based on a payoff, then what payoff do you base these values on? It seems as though they are placed on Adam obeying and remaining in the garden and disobeying and being kicked out. So if that is the payoff then I would agree with the values. But if the payoff is something further down the road then the garden, maybe it changes things.
First you must realize that I am looking at this from LDS doctrine, which differs a bit from evangelist doctrine with regard to the fall. I did post a link to another blog article in one of your other posts that I hope you had time to read.
LDS say that Adam was in a state of innocence in the garden, didn't know good from evil, they wouldn't have a reference to understand joy and sorrow, maybe some other differences. They would remain in this state until they gained knowledge of good and evil. I also began to argue before that they didn't understand that they were naked, which is a key factor, in having offspring. I would agree that at some point they could figure out how to have kids but then the kids would be in the same innocent state.
In the plan of salvation that I know, our goal is to become like God. We have to have the knowledge of good and evil, be able to make choices and learn through those choices that consequences come of all choices, good or bad. As we make bad choices, we see the negative consequences and make changes. If we make good choices we see good consequences. We gain a working knowledge of good and evil, through the choices we make here. If we succeed in learning to make good choices and correct the mistakes, then we can become perfect, eventually, like God is. So if we are left in the garden in a state of innocence without the knowledge and experience necessary to progress.
You spoke before about your dogs. I also have dogs, and I leave them inside when I am not home. I hate coming home and cleaning piles up. Lots of people told me to use the old newspaper rub their nose in the pile method to train the dogs. I don’t like that because I doubt the dog wants poop on his nose. Instead when I come home and find a pile, I give the dog no attention, completely ignore it, since he likes to play and have my undivided attention, this is not desirable to the dog. When I come home to no pile, I over emphasize my attention and play time with him. It wasn’t very long before I had no stinking piles to clean up when I got home. This is true freedom to the dog, he can roam around the house when I am gone, doesn’t have to be locked in some room, and I can trust that he will want to please.
Now in your dog story, you effectively removed your dogs from the kitchen of Eden, and keep them from entering the kitchen, some might even suggest that you force them out because they have no choice in the matter, so they won’t put their nose on the table of life. I’m not proposing that I am a better dog God than you, but your dogs are restricted in their behavior, being removed from the room, and they have no choice but to chew toys or sleep until you grant them access to the kitchen again. I’m sure you would rather have the dogs free to come and go as they please and choose not to put their nose on the table. Once again, true freedom to the dogs.
God would like the same from us, being able to have every choice available to us and be trusted to always make the right choice. Coming here, removed from his presence, to learn the consequences of our choices is our time to learn from our mistakes, keep our noses off the table and piles off the floor because we choose to.
If this is correct then I would swap the two values because being innocently oblivious to the knowledge of good and evil means we would never be able to become like God, which would be more desirable than existing in a garden forever without experiencing joy.
3:11 PM, September 08, 2008
rich said...
Just a note I thought of, the same trick hasn't worked to keep my dog of the furniture while I'm gone.
3:13 PM, September 08, 2008
lee randolph said...
Hi Rich,
welcome back,
It sounds like you are a better Dog God than I am and a better Dog God than god is.
How does the way you handle your dogs compare to the way god handled adam?
It sounds like your dogs get the extended version of the prisoners dilemma, they get a chance to react to subsequent encounters. Like a training phase or something. Or have I misunderstood?
4:28 PM, September 08, 2008
lee randolph said...
doGs will be doGs won't they? what to do, what to do?
4:45 PM, September 08, 2008
anonymous said...
I think the problem here is that virtually every mainline religion that maintains the Hebrew scriptures regard this story as allegorical? I always thought that the main idea here is that there is that we are imperfect and incapable of perfecting ourselves. I rather like that "lesson".
If you are off arguing with the crazies about a literal reading of the Old Testament, I can think of a billion other ways to spend time productively. On the other hand, if you can read a literary myth for its intrinsic worth, perhaps you'd contribute something useful.
9:37 PM, September 08, 2008
evan said...
Anonymous ... you're simply wrong.
40% of AMERICANS believe the earth is less than 10000 years old.
That means a majority of Christians in the US (about 75-80% of the US population is Christian) believe in the literal story of Genesis.
If you think we ought to argue against a minority position rather than target overtly crazy beliefs that are held by the majority of Christians, you don't understand the purpose of this site.
11:08 PM, September 08, 2008
lee randolph said...
anonymous,
yea, what evan said,
and moreover you didn't read this comment above
"do me a favor. Write out romans five (so you understand it as well as possible), then cross out all references to adam and tell me what you have left over. ....Adam is at the root of christianity. As long as there is credibility for adam, there is credibility for christianity."
if you cross out all references to adam, what you have is an empty assertion that the killing of Jesus had some mystical meaning.
If you've ever worked in security, crowd control, you know that, theoretically, to handle a riot, you have to take out the leaders. That was a tumultuous time in jerusalem, the romans needed to maintain control, and so when jesus showed up with his gang of merry men carrying swords, the authorities caught him and hung him out to dry.
Paul used some pre-existing biases to create this rationalization out of cognitive dissonance that created a nice neat frame put Jesus in for the rest.
does that clear it up for you?
Its not about arguing over myths, its about stopping FRAUD.
11:30 PM, September 08, 2008
richard said...
Bahramhered,
Yes, I agree. To quote Einstein, "Insanity means doing the same thing over and over expecting different results."
12:21 AM, September 09, 2008
lee randolph said...
Richard,
of course you would because you have no rebuttal to my argument so you just attack me personally.
typical christian strategy.
Might makes right. Biblical principle.
12:24 AM, September 09, 2008
richard said...
Ha, ha, do you honestly believe that you can disprove the God of the universe by using a silly game matrix?
12:43 AM, September 09, 2008
lee randolph said...
Hi Richard,
bad move #2,
ridicule.
Got any rebuttals handy?
1:21 AM, September 09, 2008
lee randolph said...
oh and richard,
in case you didn't get the memo,
"disprove" presumes there is something proven. No one has proven any "god of the universe", but feel free to try your hand at it. Maybe you can get him to roust me out of bed in the morning.
3:57 AM, September 09, 2008
lee randolph said...
Triablogue has a response to this article. They really seem to have put a lot of work into it, but in the end its really only nay-saying.
Heres the link to it.
However it is a good example of an argument from ignorance premised by a conclusion drawn from unverifiable sources.
I recommend you go take a look at it and see what I had to say about it.
9:40 AM, September 09, 2008
Prof. Helmut Koester of Harvard Divinity School attacks
The End of Biblical Studies by clinging to religionist arguments for biblical studies.
In the September/October 2008 issue of
Biblical Archaeology Review (aka, BAR, pages 11-12), Prof. Helmut Koester, a retired and eminent member of Harvard Divinity School, launched an attack on my recent book,
The End of Biblical Studies.
Unfortunately, Prof. Koester’s critique (which is not currently accessible on-line) is short on facts and long on routine religionist apologetics for biblical studies. He begins his critique as follows:
Sometimes amateurs don’t know enough to know they don’t know enough. A luminous example of this phenomenon is offered by Triablogue’s,
Postmortem on Avalos, which has assembled a collection of conservative scholars to prove that I was wrong about Sargon.
"Now - let me add this. We're not going to have all the answers. There will be some things like the issue of light from the farthest star in a young universe... we don't have all the answers."
--Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis iTunes Podcast "Sermon: Six Days & The Eisegesis Problem", time into program: 1:09:12
"Ken Ham's answer is consistent with his response on this question from his 'Answers' book. The last question is this and he attempts to offer an explanation for it by saying that some YECs support an 'Appearance of Age' hypothesis but Ham agrees that hypothesis is unsatisfactory since that makes God looks deceptive. Ham concludes in his book with very similar language as his iPod broadcast that we really just don't know, and have to trust. This really was unconvincing to me as this was the first book I read when I was searching out this issue and this lack of response on this issue was instrumental in leading me away from YEC to the RTB position."
--John Walley [a Christian] on the ASA listserv
CREATIONISTS ADMIT THE EVIDENCE FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION POSES PROBLEMS
"Perhaps the most important remaining question [in astronomy] for [young- universe] creationists is the origin of the turnoff points in the H-R diagrams of different clusters. The stars are real physical objects and presumably follow physical laws; we would rather not take the easy way out by saying simply that `God made them that way.' But if creationists take the position of rejecting stellar evolution, they should provide a feasible alternative."
--PAUL STEIDL [young-universe creationist], The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 153 -- as quoted by Howard J. Van Till in The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us about the Creation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 239
"...the theory of stellar structure appears to be founded on a good physical basis and...stellar evolution is intimately related to stellar structure...
"If creationists wish to scrap stellar evolution completely, then it is incumbent on us to rework stellar structure and/or physics in a convincing fashion...
"The standard observational tool used in studying stellar structure and evolution is the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram... It consists of a plot of stellar luminosity increasing upward and temperature increasing to the left...Most stars are found on a roughly diagonal band called the main sequence (MS)...
"This agreement is quite impressive and the physical assumptions that go into it are so well founded it is doubtful that many creationists would have much to argue with in main sequence (MS) stellar structure. However, what is generally called post MS evolution is not far removed from the brief outline of stellar structure given above.
"The most massive stars may pass through successive steps of fusing helium nuclei with increasingly more massive nuclei up to iron...Note that these transitions have not actually been observed. However, they are based on physics principles and will naturally occur...
"The upshot is that the most massive stars have MS lifetimes of only a few hundred thousand years (of course, still much longer than young-age creationists would allow), while the lowest mass stars have MS lifetimes approaching 100 billion years...
"And evolutionary assumption concludes that the stars in a star cluster should form from a single cloud so that the members represent...a homogenous group. Different clusters should have different ages, and though they technically have different compositions, even large differences in composition do not seriously affect the overall appearance of an H-R diagram...
"The agreement of the theory [of stellar evolution] is quite impressive...
"[The expected evolutionary] trend between globular and open clusters is observed...
"Evidence [exists] that the formation of planetary nebulae and the evolution of white dwarfs are related...These two ages have a very good correlation...
"A similar relationship holds for neutron stars and supernova remnants. As with planetary nebulae, the expansion velocity and observed size of the remnant can be used to estimate the time since the explosion...Where a pulsar can be identified in a supernova remnant, the ages of the remnant and the pulsar are well correlated.
"Very brief discussions of stellar structure and evolution have been presented. Though it would seem that creationists would not have much with which to quarrel in the former, most would largely dismiss the latter. However, the two are intimately related, and one cannot be rejected without seriously calling into question the other. We are appealing to readers to give much attention to the study of stellar evolution..."
--DANNY R. FAULKNER and DON B. DE YOUNG [young-universe creationists], "Toward a Creationist Astronomy," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 28, Dec. 1991, pp. 87-91
ADMISSIONS BY CREATIONISTS REGARDING THE EVIDENCE FOR AN OLD EARTH
Young-earther creation-evangelist Duane T. Gish has refused to debate the age of the earth and has even admitted (much to his fellow creationists' chagrin) that the evidence for fossil succession is a challenge that his fellow young-earthers at ICR have not adequately met:
"When I visited the Institute for Creation Research towards the end of 1978... The associate director is Duane T. Gish, who has a PhD in biochemistry from Berkeley. ... Considering that I believe living things have a common origin and have evolved over a long period of time, and Duane Gish doesn't, there turned out to be a surprising amount of shared ground between us. ... Duane Gish and others of his standing are well aware of this problem [for their young-earth views, i.e., the problem of the age of the earth], but in the end they let their faith over-ride it. When I asked him what were the biggest difficulties for creationist science the points in a debate which he felt least comfortable in answering - he answered after a moment's thought that it was the apparently great age of Earth as shown by the fairly recent advances in radiometric dating; and that the the fossil record could be interpreted as showing ecologically complete ages - the age of invertebrates, the age of fishes, the age of reptiles, and so on up to the present." [from Hitching F., The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Pan: London, 1982, pp.115-121]
In 1938 Harold Clark (a disciple of the Flood geologist, George Macready Price, whose work also inspired Henry Morris for hypothesis "flood geology" as an explanation for the geological record) was invited by a student to visit the oil fields of Oklahoma and northern Texas, where Mr. Clark saw with his own eyes why geologists believed as they did. Observations of deep drilling and conversations with practical geologists gave Clark a real shock that permanently erased any confidence he had left in Price's vision of a topsy-turvy fossil record. Clark wrote to Price:
"The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago." [Cited by Donald R. Prothero, A Review Essay of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers]
ANOTHER CHALLENGE FOR YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISM
When dealing with stellar matters it's not simply a question of "apparent age," it's also a question of "apparent HISTORY IN THE MAKING." We see galaxies turning that never really turned, pulsars pulsing that never really pulsed, rings of matter expanding that never really exploded in the first place, stars changing in brightness and frequency but such events are not really taking place, they never took place, not ever. Stars exploding, but no such explosions ever took place. Our galaxy (one of over 50 billion such galaxies) contains about a hundred billion stars and is about 100,000 light-years in width. If you are a young-earth creationist that means all the light beyond 6,000 light years distance is "created light," which means that most of the light from stars in our galaxy is telling us about the changing histories of stars and other matter that is completely fabricated history, such history never took place, but we SEE IT TAKING PLACE as if it had. And that's just for our galaxy, beyond our galaxy lay over 50 billion more galaxies, all far far beyond 6,000 light years away. And all that we see is fabricated history taking place before our eyes.
So why even create the rest of the cosmos, maybe nothing really exists beyond 6,000 light years around the earth but a projection screen and God is showing a movie of things that don't exist and never really happened, but we just see it happening.
Think about it, the young-earth cosmos only presents us with true history from 6,000 light years away, and even THAT history, at the outskirts of 6,000 light years away, only just NOW kicked in. But the cosmos is BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS ACROSS, that's a heck of a lot of false history unfolding before our eyes of things that never ever happened, but we SEE IT HAPPENING, UNFOLDING, BECOMING, PASSING THOUGH STAGES, NONE OF WHICH EVER REALLY HAPPENED?
Supernova 1987A and a 6000 Year Old Universe
Numerous articles on a classic piece of astronomical observation that poses multiple insoluble problems for young-earth astronomy: SUPERNOVA 1987http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html
Scroll down the above web page for info on SN 1987A )http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm( Scroll down the above web page for infor on SN 1987A )
--------
YEC's admitting that SN 1987A poses a problem
http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/200101/0168.html
( The above webpage consists of an email thread from a discussion group at the American Scientific Affiliation website, a major national organization consisting of Christian men and women who are professional scientists, most of whom are old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists, with some young-earthers. It is older than Henry Morris' ICR and Morris actually quit the ASA to form the ICR after having some of his pet young-earth hypotheses questioned by scientists who were ASA members. )
See also this discussion of SN 1987a
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/marslist12.html
Ed (Edward T. Babinski, editor of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists)
Creationists like
Todd Wood of
Bryan College have admitted that viewing humans and chimps as completely different "kinds" is a "problem" because humans and chimps are nearer to one another genetically than species that creationists view as a single "kind," like "cats" for instance. Wood's technical paper discusses a number of specific "problems" for creationism. Below are edited portions, along with portions of articles by others on the topic, and a suggested reading list.
"The Chimpanzee Genome and the Problem of Biological Similarity" by Todd Charles Wood, creationist [Center for Origins Research, Bryan College, Dayton, TN, USA], 2006
"Abstract. Evidence for the great similarity between chimpanzees and humans was recently reinforced with the publication of a rough draft of the chimpanzee genome...
"If the entire chimpanzee genome had been sequenced, it would probably reveal 40-45 million nucleotides unique to each species. That difference... may sound profound, but remember that the majority of nucleotides are contained in simple repeats, either of satellites or transposable elements. Further, even a length variation of 90 million nucleotides constitutes only 3% of the entire genome."...
"When comparing the chimpanzee and human genomes, we find a near identity of gene sequences but important differences in transpositional features (including differences in chromosome number, chromosomal inversions, and transposable element content). As noted above, this implies that the important biological differences are not so much in the genes themselves but in how the genes are expressed, which may be related to the substantive differences between the genetic context that arise from transposable or repetitive elements. [See for instance the "60-second science" video, "What is Evo-Devo," in which Christopher Mims, an editor of Scientific American magazine, explains the role that differeing "gene expression" plays in evolution: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/02/what_is_evodevo.html ]
"The high degree of genetic similarity between apes and humans has been repeatedly confirmed since King and Wilson’s (1975) summary. Chromosomal banding patterns revealed a high degree of correspondence between human and chimpanzee chromosomes (Miller 1977, Yunis et al. 1980, Yunis and Prakash 1982). Major chromosomal differences detected were a putative fusion of chimpanzee chromosomes 12 and 13 to form human chromosome 2, and pericentromeric inversions on human chromosomes 4, 5, 9, 12, 15, and 16 (Yunis and Prakash 1982)."... "Human chromosome 2 corresponds to two separate chromosomes in chimpanzee. These findings have subsequently been confirmed in studies using fluorescence in situ hybridization (Müller and Wienberg 2001).
"The evolutionary explanation for human chromosome 2 corresponding to two separate chromosomes in the great apes is that two chromosomes in a human ancestor fused at their ends (telomeres), with one of the centromeres becoming inactive. By examining the putative 'fusion' point, researchers have discovered an inverted array of telomeric repeats (TTAGGG)n (Ijdo et al. 1991) and other sequences found in subtelomeric chromosomal regions (Fan et al. 2002). Centromeric alpha satellite sequences have been detected on the long arm of chromosome 2, which seem to correspond to an inactive centromere (Alexandrov et al. 2001)."...
"...it is difficult to imagine a scenario other than chromosomal fusion to explain the inverted array of telomere and subtelomere repeats at the putative fusion site on chromosome 2 (Ijdo et al. 1991)."
"PREVIOUS CREATIONIST RESPONSES -- Since the Bible clearly teaches the special creation of human beings (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 21-22), what does the similarity of humans and chimpanzees mean for creationists? Creationists have responded to these studies in a variety of ways. A very popular argument is that similarity does not necessarily indicate common ancestry but could also imply common design (e.g. Batten 1996; Thompson and Harrub 2005; DeWitt 2005). While this is true, the mere fact of similarity is only a small part of the evolutionary argument.
"Far more important than the mere occurrence of similarity is the kind of similarity observed. Similarity is not random. Rather, it forms a detectable pattern with some groups of species more similar than others. As an example consider a 200,000 nucleotide region from human chromosome 1 (Figure 2). When compared to the chimpanzee, the two species differ by as little as 1-2%, but when compared to the mouse, the differences are much greater. Comparison to chicken reveals even greater differences. This is exactly the expected pattern of similarity that would result if humans and chimpanzees shared a recent common ancestor and mice and chickens were more distantly related. The question is not how similarity arose but why this particular pattern of similarity arose. To say that God could have created the pattern is merely ad hoc. The specific similarity we observe between humans and chimpanzees is not therefore evidence merely of their common ancestry but of their close relationship.
"Evolutionary biologists also appeal to specific similarities that would be predicted by evolutionary descent. Max’s (1986) argument for shared errors in the human and chimpanzee genomes would be an example of a specific similarity expected if evolution were true. [Max's article was updated in 2003, including responses to creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ ]
"This argument could be significantly amplified from recent findings of genomic studies. For example, Gilad et al. (2003) surveyed 50 olfactory receptor genes in humans and apes. They found that the open reading frame of 33 of the human genes were interrupted by nonsense codons or deletions, rendering them pseudogenes. Sixteen of these human pseudogenes were also pseudogenes in chimpanzee, and they all shared the exact same substitution or deletion as the human sequence. Eleven of the human pseudogenes were shared by chimpanzee, gorilla, and human and had the exact same substitution or deletion. While common design could be a reasonable first step to explain similarity of functional genes, it is difficult to explain why pseudogenes with the exact same substitutions or deletions would be shared between species that did not share a common ancestor.
"Creationists have addressed these more specific arguments in a variety of ways. Batten (1996) makes three arguments: (1) similarity is necessary to reveal a single Creator, since dissimilarity implies multiple creators (also in ReMine 1993, p. 23), (2) biochemical similarity is functionally necessary in order for humans (and other organisms) to obtain food (also in Wise 1992), (3) the anatomical similarity of humans and chimpanzees should imply a molecular similarity as well (also in Wise 1992; Rana 2001; Wieland 2002). The first two arguments are good reasons to create some degree of biological or biochemical similarity but they do not explain degrees of similarity. If there were no nonhuman primates, humans would still be recognizably mammalian and therefore revealed as part of the design of a single Creator, but humans would also stand out as special mammals not closely similar to any other particular group of mammals. The necessity for a common biochemistry for nutrient cycles does not explain why chimpanzees exist. They neither form a major source of dietary nutrients for most humans nor share a significant fraction of the diet of most humans. Further, common biochemistry would not explain shared pseudogenes. The third argument merely shifts the problem to the anatomical level. The question remains as to why God created an animal that is so similar to humans.
"More recently, creationists have begun to argue that the similarity between chimpanzees and humans is less – sometimes much less – than claimed by evolutionary biologists (DeWitt 2003, 2005; Criswell 2005; Thompson and Harrub 2005)... Differences are certainly important, and there are many differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes, as detailed above. However, emphasizing these differences does not resolve the problem of similarity. Even if the chimpanzee genome were more than 5% or 10% different from the human genome, the differences are still vastly outnumbered by the similarities (at least 9 to 1). The major pattern that requires explanation is the surprising degree of genomic similarity, as King and Wilson (1975) noted thirty years ago. Listing differences between the genomes does not alter the overall pattern. If anything, the differences are more striking because of the overwhelming similarity.
"AN ALTERNATIVE CREATIONIST RESPONSE -- Having found most popular arguments about the human/chimpanzee genome similarity insufficent, I find myself in the unenviable position of devising my own explanation. Since I have none, I will attempt instead to develop some principles that could guide research into this problem... As mentioned already, the common creationist response... is to appeal to a designer as the source of the similarity. Although this is undoubtedly true, it is trivial. The point Darwin makes is not that similarity alone indicates common ancestry but that the particular pattern or scheme of similarities across all organisms is the same pattern we would expect from common descent. As Darwin noted in the quote above, appealing to the will of the Creator does not explain the particular pattern of similarity that we observe, except in an ad hoc fashion. Creation biology needs an explanation of the pattern of similarities, not merely an ad hoc appeal to a common designer...
"...Robinson and Cavanaugh (1998b) concluded that all extant felids [cats] belong to the same baramin and presumably descended from a single pair of cats on the Ark, but Slattery and O’Brien (1998) found distances greater than 5% among felid Zfy genes and greater than 3% among felid Zfx genes. Certainly if felid sequences can vary by that amount, what is to preclude the conclusion that the much lower differences observed between human and chimpanzees genomes indicates their cobaraminic status? ["co-baramic" means "belonging to the same 'baramin' or 'kind'"] ... As with the genetic diversity of cats, what is to preclude application of this same argument to chimpanzees and humans with the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with an animal? To put this question another way, how can we maintain that felids share a common ancestor with their genomic differences, and deny that the smaller differences between humans and chimpanzees could not also arise from a common ancestor? The only way to do this is to favor other data in baraminology, and to deny the primacy of the genome in determining true phylogenetic or baraminic relationships.
"THE FUTURE OF CREATIONIST GENOMICS -- The genome revolution, exciting though it is, is not an obvious victory for creationism. Although more data allows for better testing of ideas, the data that we have present significant challenges to creationist theory, particularly in the realm of biological similarity... If we wish to be good stewards of our very limited resources, we should avoid projects that are unlikely to be productive (e.g. overemphasizing potentially insignificant differences or trivializing the striking similarities) and focus instead on one of the most pressing problems in biology, biological similarity."
~~~~~
EVIDENCE OF SIMILARITY THAT THE CREATIONIST ABOVE IS SPEAKING ABOUT
2003 -- New genetic evidence demonstrates that lineages of chimps (currently Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) diverged so recently [i.e., so closely resemble one another] that chimps should be [reclassified] as Homo troglodytes [i.e., members of the same genus, which is eactly how other species are classified whose genomes resemble one another so closely]. The move would make chimps full members of our genus Homo, along with Neandertals, and all other human-like fossil species. 'We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes,' says the study... Within important sequence stretches of these functionally significant genes, humans and chimps share 99.4 percent identity. (Some previous DNA work remains controversial. It concentrated on genetic sequences that are not parts of genes and are less functionally important, said Goodman.) ["Chimps Belong on Human Branch of Family Tree, Study Says" John Pickrell in England for National Geographic News May 20, 2003]
2005 -- The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees was reported. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence [with perfect identity].
The typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago. To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 10 times LESS than between the mouse and rat. [And just think of how similar a mouse and a rat appear to be, such that some creationists probably are willing to guess that mice and rats arose from the same "kind" via "micro-evolution." Yet humans are 10 times nearer to chimps than rats are to mice, genetically speaking]
On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.
The researchers discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals.
These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of electrically charged molecules called ions. Researchers suspect the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, but further studies are needed to explore the possibilities.
The genomic analyses also showed that humans and chimps appear to have accumulated more potentially deleterious mutations in their genomes over the course of evolution than have mice, rats and other rodents. While such mutations can cause diseases that may erode a species' overall fitness, they may have also made primates more adaptable to rapid environmental changes and enabled them to achieve unique evolutionary adaptations, researchers said.
Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species... Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.
"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set," said the study's lead author, Tarjei S. Mikkelsen of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. ["New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level," The National Human Genome Research Institute, 2005]
~~~~~
The human genome is nearly 99% chimp, which also means that the chimp genome is nearly 99% human. And if you changed base pairs in each -- one base pair at a time --making both human and chimp draw even nearer to one another genetically, you would eventually reach a point where changing just a single base pair in the genome would make that human a chimp or make that chimp a human. Of course by that time the line between human and chimp would have grown very fuzzy indeed.
Ed (Edward T. Babinski, author of Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, paperback 2003, Prometheus Books)
~~~~~
GENETIC EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT SUGGESTS THAT SOON AFTER THE SPECIES THAT WERE TO BECOME "CHIMPANZEES" AND "HUMANS" DIVERGED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR, THEY CONTINUED TO INTERBREED FOR A WHILE
December 10, 2006
Human-Chimp Hybrids
By STEPHEN MIHM
"On hearing of Darwin’s theories, the wife of the bishop of Worcester supposedly exclaimed: “Descended from apes? My dear, let us hope that it is not true.” Now the geneticist David Reich of the Broad Institute at Harvard and M.I.T. has advanced a theory that the bishop’s wife would have found even more disturbing: human and chimp ancestors, after diverging into separate species millions of years ago, came back together and interbred.
"Reich came up with the idea after comparing the genes of humans and chimps. When two species split from a common ancestor, their genes will continue to diverge, or mutate, at a regular clip over time. Reich and his team of researchers, after comparing some 20 million base pairs (the “rungs” of DNA) from humans and chimps, found that different genes began diverging at different times — with genes located on the X chromosome of humans and chimps parting ways most recently.
"Reich’s explanation is that the two populations interbred on repeated occasions over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years, producing hybrids of protohumans and protochimps. The male hybrids were likely to be sterile, but Reich posits that the female hybrids (with their two X chromosomes) were able to mate with males of one of the original species. This would explain why genes on the X chromosome of humans and chimps diverged more recently.
"It’s a radical concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the development of separate species happens quickly, most often when populations become separated by a geographical barrier. Even if these groups meet again and manage to mate before diverging too far from one another, their offspring will be unfit and die out. Or so the thinking goes.
"By contrast, Reich argues that hybrids could play an important and positive role in speciation, introducing advantageous traits into a gene pool — including ours. If Reich is correct, the customary image of the human family tree, with its neat and discrete divisions, should be replaced by another metaphor: a dense and impenetrable thicket of branches concealing countless acts of interspecies sex. It’s enough to make a bishop’s wife blush."
~~~~~
NATURE magazine, 2006
Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees
Nick Patterson1, Daniel J. Richter1, Sante Gnerre1, Eric S. Lander1,2 & David Reich1,3
"The genetic divergence time between two species varies substantially across the genome, conveying important information about the timing and process of speciation. Here we develop a framework for studying this variation and apply it to about 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and more distantly related primates. Human–chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84% to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years. Our analysis also shows that human–chimpanzee speciation occurred less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently, conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils. Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum along nearly its entire length. These unexpected features would be explained if the human and chimpanzee lineages initially diverged, then later exchanged genes before separating permanently."
~~~~~
READING LIST
Relics of Eden: The Powerful Evidence of Evolution in Human DNA (Published Dec. 2007)
Darwinian Detectives: Revealing the Natural History of Genes and Genomes (Oxford U. Press, July 2007)
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution (W.W. Norton, Sept. 2007)
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
~~~~~
AND ON THE FOSSIL FRONT... MORE CREATIONIST ADMISSIONS
"I was surprised to find that instead of enough fossils barely to fit into a coffin, as one evolutionist once stated [in 1982], there were over 4,000 hominid fossils as of 1976. Over 200 specimens have been classified as Neandertal and about one hundred as Homo erectus. More of these fossils have been found since 1976."
--MICHAEL J. OARD, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 30, March 1994, p. 222
"The current figures [circa 1994] are even more impressive: over 220 Homo erectus fossil individuals discovered to date, possibly as many as 80 archaic Homo sapiens fossil individuals discovered to date, and well over 300 Neandertal fossil individuals discovered to date."
--MARVIN L. LUBENOW, author of Bones of Contention--A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, in a letter to the editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31, Sept. 1994, p. 70
~~~~~
Ape-Hominid Species In Relative Geological Order Along With Their Cranial Capacities
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Cranium size, 350 cubic centimeters
Australopithecus [= "Southern Ape" in Latin] afarensis
Cranial capacity varied from about 375 to 550 cc.
Australopithecus africanus Brain size may also have been slightly larger, ranging between 420 and 500 cc. This is a little larger than chimp brains (despite a similar body size)
Australopithecus aethiopicus
The brain size is 410 cc
Australopithecus robustus
The average brain size is about 530 cc.
Australopithecus boisei (was Zinjanthropus boisei)
The brain size is about 530 cc.
Homo habilis
500-800 cc
H. habilis, "handy man", was so called because of evidence of tools found with its remains. The face is still primitive, but it projects less than in A. africanus. The back teeth are smaller, but still considerably larger than in modern humans. The average brain size, at 650 cc, is considerably larger than in australopithecines. Brain size varies between 500 and 800 cc, overlapping the australopithecines at the low end and H. erectus at the high end. The brain shape is also more humanlike. The bulge of Broca's area, essential for speech, is visible in one habilis brain cast, and indicates it was possibly capable of rudimentary speech. Habilis is thought to have been about 127 cm (5'0") tall, and about 45 kg (100 lb) in weight, although females may have been smaller.
Habilis has been a controversial species. Originally, some scientists did not accept its validity, believing that all habilis specimens should be assigned to either the australopithecines or Homo erectus. H. habilis is now fully accepted as a species, but it is widely thought that the 'habilis' specimens have too wide a range of variation for a single species, and that some of the specimens should be placed in one or more other species. One suggested species which is accepted by many scientists is Homo rudolfensis, which would contain fossils such as ER 1470.
Homo georgicus
600-780 cc
This species was named in 2002 to contain fossils found in Dmanisi, Georgia, which seem intermediate between H. habilis and H. erectus. The fossils are about 1.8 million years old, consisting of three partial skulls and three lower jaws. The brain sizes of the skulls vary from 600 to 780 cc. The height, as estimated from a foot bone, would have been about 1.5 m (4'11"). A partial skeleton was also discovered in 2001 but no details are available on it yet. (Vekua et al. 2002, Gabunia et al. 2002)
Homo erectus
750-1225 cc
H. erectus existed between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago. Like habilis, the face has protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, and a long low skull, with a brain size varying between 750 and 1225 cc. Early erectus specimens average about 900 cc, while late ones have an average of about 1100 cc (Leakey 1994). Study of the Turkana Boy skeleton (from Africa) indicates that erectus may have been more efficient at walking than modern humans, whose skeletons have had to adapt to allow for the birth of larger-brained infants (Willis 1989). Homo habilis and all the australopithecines are found only in Africa, but erectus was wide-ranging, and has been found in Africa, Asia, and Europe. There is evidence that erectus probably used fire, and their stone tools are more sophisticated than those of habilis.
Archaic Homo sapiens (also Homo heidelbergensis)
1200 cc on average
Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago. The term covers a diverse group of skulls which have features of both Homo erectus and modern humans. The brain size is larger than erectus and smaller than most modern humans, averaging about 1200 cc, and the skull is more rounded than in erectus. The skeleton and teeth are usually less robust than erectus, but more robust than modern humans. Many still have large brow ridges and receding foreheads and chins. There is no clear dividing line between late erectus and archaic sapiens, and many fossils between 500,000 and 200,000 years ago are difficult to classify as one or the other.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (also Homo neanderthalensis)
1450 cc on average
Neandertal (or Neanderthal) man existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago. The average brain size is slightly larger than that of modern humans, about 1450 cc, but this is probably correlated with their greater bulk. The brain case however is longer and lower than that of modern humans, with a marked bulge at the back of the skull. Like erectus, they had a protruding jaw and receding forehead. The chin was usually weak. The midfacial area also protrudes, a feature that is not found in erectus or sapiens and may be an adaptation to cold. There are other minor anatomical differences from modern humans, the most unusual being some peculiarities of the shoulder blade, and of the pubic bone in the pelvis. Neandertals mostly lived in cold climates, and their body proportions are similar to those of modern cold-adapted peoples: short and solid, with short limbs. Men averaged about 168 cm (5'6") in height. Their bones are thick and heavy, and show signs of powerful muscle attachments. Neandertals would have been extraordinarily strong by modern standards, and their skeletons show that they endured brutally hard lives. A large number of tools and weapons have been found, more advanced than those of Homo erectus. Neandertals were formidable hunters, and are the first people known to have buried their dead, with the oldest known burial site being about 100,000 years old. They are found throughout Europe and the Middle East. Western European Neandertals usually have a more robust form, and are sometimes called "classic Neandertals". Neandertals found elsewhere tend to be less excessively robust. (Trinkaus and Shipman 1992; Trinkaus and Howells 1979; Gore 1996)
Homo floresiensis
Ancient extinct dwarf human species
Homo floresiensis was discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. Fossils have been discovered from a number of individuals. The most complete fossil is of an adult female about 1 meter tall with a brain size of 417cc. Other fossils indicate that this was a normal size for floresiensis. It is thought that floresiensis is a dwarf form of Homo erectus - it is not uncommon for dwarf forms of large mammals to evolve on islands. H. floresiensis was fully bipedal, used stone tools and fire, and hunted dwarf elephants also found on the island. (Brown et al. 2004, Morwood et al. 2004, Lahr and Foley 2004)
Modern Homo sapiens sapiens
1350 cc on average
Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago. Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc. The forehead rises sharply, eyebrow ridges are very small or more usually absent, the chin is prominent, and the skeleton is very gracile. About 40,000 years ago, with the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started becoming markedly more sophisticated, using a wider variety of raw materials such as bone and antler, and containing new implements for making clothing, engraving and sculpting. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings appeared over the next 20,000 years. (Leakey 1994) HUMAN EVOLUTION DURING THE LAST 100,000 YEARS
Even within the last 100,000 years, the long-term trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness can be discerned. About 30,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic the face, jaw and teeth of humans were 20 to 30% more robust than the modern condition in Europe and Asia. About 10,000 years ago in the Mesolithic the face, jaw and teeth of humans were about 10% more robust than ours. Today the smallest tooth sizes of modern day homo sapiens are found in those areas where food-processing techniques have been used for the longest time. This is a probable example of natural selection which has occurred within the last 10,000 years (Brace 1983). Interestingly, some modern humans (aboriginal Australians) have tooth sizes that are larger and more typical of archaic species of homo sapiens.
My friend
Eddie Tabash is one of the leading defenders of the separation of church and state in America today. You can see him argue for it
here. I think this is an idea that should be accepted whether a person is religious or not. So although I've declared politics off limits here in the past, since this is a very important election year and since the separation of church and state is so very important to me, I'll be posting a few things from time to time that I find interesting in this year's Presidential election.
From the Secular Humanism Online News
Vol.4 No.9
The Danger of the Religious Right in this Presidential Election
By Edward Tabash.The fact that Barack Obama and John McCain had their first joint appearance, sort of, at an evangelical church has ominous implications. It shows that both candidates know that evangelicals are still recognized as the largest single voting block in these elections cycles. This is bolstered by the way McCain’s unabashed embracing of the religious right agenda only helped him in the national polls. Obama’s more measured and somewhat hesitant way of answering questions regarding abortion and gay rights did not sell with biblical literalist voters who want an absolute commitment that the next president of the United States will be devoted to infusing religious dogma into the law of the land, under which we all must live.
McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, a truly inexperienced first-term governor of a remote and sparsely populated state, primarily because she is a Christian fundamentalist, shows that the religious right has not lost power but has more political might than ever before. Most news reports have claimed, and McCain has never denied it, that he would have preferred the pro-choice Orthodox Jewish Democrat Joe Lieberman as his running mate. However, the Christian right nixed this because Lieberman supports abortion rights. If McCain dies in office, Lieberman as the new president would put church-state separationists on the Supreme Court, regardless of his own frequently overblown religious rhetoric.
As secularists, however, our concern cannot be with the rhetoric of a campaign. Our concern can only be with the Supreme Court. We shouldn’t care what a candidate says in order to get elected in a nation where religious voters are still the most powerful plurality. We should rather focus on the type of justices that a candidate would appoint to the Supreme Court. Right now, with a shift of even one vote on the Court, we would lose, entirely, government neutrality in matters of religion, which is the core of church-state separation.
During the joint appearance at Saddleback Church, McCain stated unambiguously that he views life as beginning at the moment of conception. If this view prevails not only is abortion outlawed but so are all post-fertilization means of birth control. When the anti-abortion movement was initially gaining power from about 1973 onward, there were some anti-abortion members of the United States Senate who would not ban anything that destroyed a fertilized egg prior to implantation. Republican Mark Hatfield of Oregon was an example of this type of politician. With the McCain view, many birth-control pills and all IUDs would be banned because they prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. The only means of contraception that would still remain legal would be those that prevented the union of sperm and egg.
Some people are very optimistic about an impending expansion of secularism in American culture. I am afraid that I do not share this optimism. The only way that secularism stands a chance is if we continue to have in place a Supreme Court that continuously says, as has been the case since 1947, that no branch of government can favor the believer over the nonbeliever. Once a new Court majority would allow branches of government to favor belief, collectively, over nonbelief, the floodgates of religion-favoring legislation would open in virtually every state.
The ideal would be to achieve a political culture in which, if someone declares themselves to be a resolute supporter of secular government and church-state separation, we could not predict from that, alone, if the person were otherwise a liberal or a conservative. Someone can have very right-wing views on many issues and still demand secular government and even be a total nonbeliever. There is no internal inconsistency, for instance, in being a member of the National Rifle Association and opposing the agenda of the religious right.There is no internal inconsistency between supporting the war in Iraq and being an atheist, as Christopher Hitchens demonstrates. However, we are a long way from the goal of attaining a society in which support for secular government is a frequently seen universal view. It is our task to make sure that such a society becomes a reality.
Edward Tabash is Chair of the First Amendment Task Force, a project of the Council for Secular Humanism.
The delightful tribe of Triablogue has continued the dialogue on the Sargon legend with a
recent post attempting to crow victory on the issues which we have debated at length.
To fully appreciate the lengths the tribe will go to, it's necessary to revisit the sentence I wrote that started the whole fracas in the first place. I made a simple, declarative sentence:
I think the story of Sargon being floated in a basket of reeds down the river as an infant is a myth (that predates the Moses myth).
This created multiple posts over on Triablogue that were apoplectic about how awful I was for suggesting such a thing. So now we have their "post-mortem" on the issue and I would like to see if they have succeeded at disproving my original claim. There are eight authors who they have selected as experts and we'll evaluate their statements in turn to see if anyone disagrees with my basic, initial assertion.
Their first author is a no-show that's really just a tease for some future "dismantling" that we can all just hold our breaths and wait for.
Their second author is Dr. James Hoffmeier. The crux of his statement in support of the tribe is this:
Indeed the Sargon legend may well be the earliest example of the expose child motif, but that does not mean that Exodus 2 could not be completely independent. To ignore the clear Egyptian linguistic elements of Exodus 2 (one that does not fit a Mesopotamian setting) is shear obscurantism!
Wow! First, he thinks that obscurantism can be taken off like wool ... an odd thought that. Secondly, he admits exactly what I stated in my first statement on the issue and the tribe is kind enough to quote him on it. Post-mortem indeed. Their argument is buried by their own expert!
Third up is Richard Hess:
I am not quite sure what the point here is. The Sargon story is generally as Avalos says. Lewis' book has been around and well known. He cites dozens of Sargon story types in the ancient Near East and later, ending with the story of Superman's birth in DC comics. The form of the Sargon legend involves a first person intro and an an epilogue that concludes with 1 of the 4: blessings/curses, didactic lesson, temple donation, or prophecy. None of this applies to the Moses story; so if there was a borrowing it was more general than Avalos would like to admit. The general motif of the rescue of a leader as a baby and his/her being brought up by strangers is certainly well known in the ancient world and around the rest of the world. So what? No doubt the author and early readers of the exodus account saw the motif in the Moses story. That says nothing about its historicity.
Yes, that's right. Once again there is not a speck of support for the idea that the Sargon legend didn't pre-date the Moses legend. Their expert supports Avalos by agreeing with him. He brings up no evidence to suggest the story of Moses has any greater historical validity than the legend of Sargon.
Next they go to John Currid:
Indeed, within ANE literature there is a common motif of a birth story in which a child is under threat but survives to become king or leader of his people. The Legend of Sargon is such a story, and many scholars identify it as the very basis of Exodus 2. To go from Exodus to Mesopotamian literature has been the bias of ANE scholarship for a long time (creation and Enuma Elish; flood and Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.). But the reality is, and many do not want to admit it, is that Exodus is set in Egypt (seems obvious, but apparently not!) -- the book is imbued with Egyptianisms (see my Ancient Egypt and OT, for example). Consequently, I think that we ought to be looking in Egyptian literature for any such paradigm: The Myth of Horus contains similar motifs as Exodus 2.
Looking closely, I see only the suggestion that both the legend of Sargon and the legend of Horus pre-date the legend of Moses. With experts like this, the tribe doesn't even need Dr. Avalos to debunk them. They can just read their own sources to prove that the story of Moses is a legend. I'm perfectly happy to admit that the culture of the Hebrews could easily have borrowed from both and of course there's nothing in the text of the Pentateuch to suggest this is not the case.
This concludes all the expert testimony that the tribe was able to get from actual experts who had reviewed whatever they sent in. It's nice to see that not a single one of them support the position that the legend of Moses pre-dates the legend of Sargon. The general rule when debating apologists is just to read the source of the apologist thoroughly and you usually have more than enough debunking ammunition within their own source, but rarely has the case been shown more conclusively than here.
The rest of the reports are all from sources that were dug up from the library or the internet or wire services and yes, not a single one suggests that the legend of Moses pre-dates the legend of Sargon. To pad the list, they even post something about medieval foundlings, a topic that is not particularly germane to the question of whether one foundling legend predates another.
So once again the tribe swings repeatedly and hits air. It's nice they at least properly titled this corpse of a post.
