Ken R. Miller responds to The Genealogical Adam and Eve
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 02. 2021
- Author Meets Critics: Science and Religion in The Genealogical Adam and Eve, by S. Joshua Swamidass
See all videos in this meeting here: • The GAE at The America...
2020 AAR Meeting
Computational biologist S. Joshua Swamidass' book, The Genealogical Adam and Eve, has aroused considerable dialogue between science and different religious points of view. His proposes a late Adam and Eve (ca. 10kya) created de novo by God, ancestors of us all, a view which he claims is fully compatible with contemporary evolutionary biology. This work raises questions about the limits of science, the dialogue between religion and science, and interdisciplinary questions about the meaning of "human" that matter to both secular and religious scholars alike.
Author:
S. Joshua Swamidass, Washington University, Saint Louis.
Panelists:
Michael Heiser, Awakening School of Theology, Jacksonville, Florida
Kenneth R. Miller, Brown University
Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University & Seminary
Greg Cootsona, Chico State University
---
Peaceful Science is making space for differences with a civic practice of science. Gain access to exclusive benefits for just $1, $5, or $10 per month, to. / peacefulscience - Věda a technologie
Dr. Swamidass, if you read these comments, I want to say that I see God moving and teaching His people how to engage the world with more love and patience. What I see in your book, I see in other arenas as well. And it's really encouraging to see God move in ways that so skillfully counter the polarized and antagonistic nature of much of present day culture. I praise God for your contribution and pray that He uses your contribution to rescue students, provide space for loving conversations, and move the Church forward to be more like Jesus.
Great response. May I ask a question? At 4:06, Dr Miller points out that a 10th generation descendant carries 1/1000th the DNA of the ancestor; however our DNA is something like 98% similar to chimpanzees and other primates, and chimpanzees are removed by much more than 10 generations (probably hundreds of thousands/millions of generations). How is it that we carry 98% of the DNA of chimps, but only 1/1000th the DNA of an ancestor of 10 generations ago? This doesn't makes sense to me. Shouldn't the overlap between DNA content of a 10th generation ancestor be far greater than a chimpanzee?
Surprising isn't it? Turns out that's the case.
The creation narrative with Adam and Eve is not demonstrably false under Swamidass' theory. It is if you ASSUME it is describing an accurate semi-scientific process and sequence of history, and that our philosophical assumptions that drive Western interpretations are valid. Neither of these is a necessary assumption. It is more likely, based on comparative cultural studies, that the creation narrative is a polemic against surrounding cultures' own creation myths, and describes functional creative acts rather than existential creative acts.
Did not expect to see Dr. Miller jumping in on the topic! What a welcomed surprise.
Yeah, It was great to hear from him. Glenn Branch from the NCSE also weighed in: discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/glenn-branch-a-ncse-review-of-the-genealogical-adam-and-eve/12424
Gerald shroeder does a great job reconciling this concept ... it must be reconciled because evolution cannot account for the spirit in man ...
1 Corinthians 3:19-20
King James Version
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
Romans 3:4
King James Version
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
The word of God is not to be compared to science. What it says is what it means.
Only a literal interpretation of the scripture keeps and maintains it’s veracity. Except for when it actually tells us it’s a parable or metaphor. When science accidentally proves scriptures it’s a testament unto the word of God. When it disagrees and offers worldly solutions for the common questions, as a believer always be ready to put God’s word above anything else. Otherwise you tend to go down a slippery slope, where you undermine your own faith and fall victim to doctrines of demons.
The word of God is Holy and righteous. It supersedes all
of man’s collective knowledge and wisdom.
either you believe in the genesis accounts or you dont,i dont think there is any grounds for a middle ground and it certainly isnt given in scripture,either believe evolution or the literal word of God,
This is excellent. It is great to present thoughtful criticism of your work. This is a wonderful example of how to have discussions and dialogue with individuals with whom we disagree. I love it.
Also, I did not know that Dobzhansky was a Christian 😳😳. I feel like we are mislead by polemicists at both extremes of this debate: the creationists/ID folks who don’t really admit that many Christians are scientists and evolutionists, and scientific materialists who portray Christianity and science as being at odds with each other and also ignore Christians who are scientists.
Keep up the good work.
Ken Miller is the OG!! 👏👏👏
Dr. Miller may be correct in his prediction that Dr. Swamidass's book will not rescue heavily invested anti-evolution leaders from the unnecessary war between science and religion, but it may very well rescue students, Christians and seekers from the heavily invested anti-evolutuon leaders assertions. The book, to use a phrase that Joshua likes, creates space for students, Christians and seekers to navigate around the bear trap of the unnecessary war between science and religion.
Ken Miller is an exceptional biologist, but I think Joshua's "olive branch" approach is much better.
a trick: you can watch series at flixzone. I've been using it for watching lots of of movies these days.
When will someone combine this theory with that of René Girard?!?!
I definitely agree with Miller that Genesis cannot be literally true in all its detail. His travel down that path is a red herring though. Mythological or figurative stories can be told about real people that existed, and the bare literal *existence* of Adam and Eve has implications for other theological doctrines, and is mentioned outside of Genesis, in non-mythological contexts. It is simply not the case that Swamidass has to have a literal view of any other particular aspect of Genesis in an argument for the existence of A & E. The point about whether or not its theologically "necessary" is also not really relevant. What's important is whether or not its true. Really this entire review was a non-sequitur.
The Genesis story of Adam and Eve is a make believe story of the lowest caliber.
First an eternal god of infinite power and wisdom emerges from the human imagination and is transferred to the written word.
As the story unfolds
it turns out that the Hebrew god sets a trap for his children
which they fall into and are condemned to suffer through the generations
until he decides to rescue them through a human sacrifice.
This is a sick and twisted story to be telling children to make them cry and feel bad.
I read a review of the Swamidass book and could not find a scrap of evidence to support any of it.