Undeception

Steve: Just a head’s up, I referenced some of your comment in my article, God the Artist. You can find it here…

http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/10/god-artist.html
.-= Todd White´s last blog ..God the Artist =-.

“They’re actually quite systematic: specifically they give the distinct impression of nested hierarchies, which end up corroborating common ancestry as predicted by evolution.”

One of the first things I was ever told regarding creationist theory was the concept of devolution starting after the fall. Which would be in keeping with your friend’s comment about “the fall did it.” I never thought of it ’till now reading your nested hierarchies quote, but just as evolution is supported by nested hierarchies, wouldn’t devolution be evidenced the same way, just in reverse? Would we expect to see gradual changes from the perfect forms? What would we expect to see?

And is there already an article at AIG I could read that would tell me about those evidences. :^)

Steve,

I just love your coining of the word “Falldidit” I am going to use that word in the future(with attribution to you, of course) Thanks.

Todd,
Thanks for letting me know. I thought your post was dead on.

Ray,
I’m afraid I’m not up on devolutionary theory. Talk about convenient! If they haven’t come up with the specific idea you mentioned, please delete your comment to avoid giving them ideas.

Doug,
Glad you noticed and liked that – I myself smiled when I came up with that one.

Hey, Steve! Hope you’re doing well. Haven’t read your blog in a while, so apologies if you’ve already talked about the following.

Isn’t it possible that those “systematic” flaws are the result of microevolution, that God did create a perfect order whose genetic code was altered through the result of choices on the part of the first (and all subsequent) humans?

I’ve recently become fascinated by the emerging science of epigenetics. Scientists have discovered the epigenome, which works as software to the hardware of the genome. The switches which control gene function can be turned on and off by nutrition, environment, medicine, and other unknown factors. This science explains why identical twins with exactly the same genes get different diseases or disorders when everything in their lives is the same. Some switch got flipped in one twin that didn’t get switched in the other.

They’ve studied epigenetic patterns where famine in a grandparent’s lifetime affects the chances for diabetes in the paternal grandchild. We already know that depression, anxiety, and many other intangible sorts of disorders run in families, but we haven’t even begun to figure out how all those mind-body connections work or what physical problems we truly inherit from our forebears.

Scientists have effectively flipped switches from one generation of mice to another. Pups from non-licking mothers, with a family history of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, lived to full life expectancy, disease free, when placed at birth with heavy-licking, nurturing mothers.

If something as simple as nurture can change the genetic makeup of a mouse in a single generation, how can we say that something as grave as breaking the commands of God didn’t mark the epigenome, throwing switches and causing patterns of iniquity and imperfection that compounded as humankind grew more flawed?

Yet man is pretty darn amazing. That’s why I’m inclined to believe that the first God-breathed people were better than X-men, and that they really did live as long as the Bible says they did, however figurative some of the finer points may (or may not) be.

I actually find it quite amusing (and sad) that Christians can chalk up all of the imperfections of the cosmos to the sin of one man and one woman. I challenge them to re-read Genesis 3 and tell me where God promises the cosmos would slant askew if a single bite of the forbidden fruit—which I do think was an apple, because I can be tempted with a shiny red apple more than any other fruit—were consumed by our forefather Adam.

Did the totality of the cosmos really enter a downward spiral just because of one man? One might not realize it at first, but that belief is quite self-centered, much like geocentric cosmology is. Moreover, did not Satan’s sin preceded Adam’s, according to traditional Evangelical theology? Satan was a created being with free will, just as Adam was. Why is Adam to blame, and not Satan?
.-= Mike Beidler´s last blog ..How the Discovery of Saturn’s Eighth Ring Threatens the Science of Astronomy =-.

Leah,
Good to hear from you! It’s weird to think you’re halfway across the country instead of around here still. Hope you’re doing well.

I had heard of epigenetics, but I couldn’t tell you what it was. It seems to be a fascinating field.

Isn’t it possible that those “systematic” flaws are the result of microevolution, that God did create a perfect order whose genetic code was altered through the result of choices on the part of the first (and all subsequent) humans?

This wouldn’t address all the systematic flaws throughout other species, nor flaws shared between us and other closely related species. For all the interesting things epigenomes might be responsible for, one individual’s epigenome wouldn’t flip any switches in all the individuals throughout the genus, much less for those in different genera: e.g. not only humans but all of the higher primates (which were already hypothesized to share a common ancestor) have an error in the part of our genome that allows most other mammals to synthesize vitamin C. The example of the eye holds true for an even larger group of animals: all vertebrates share the same suboptimal retinal nerve placement, as opposed to the much better structured eye of the cephalopods. There is no rationale for this in the version of Intelligent Design that doesn’t allow for common descent. Here instantaneous, de novo creation actually makes more sense than ID, but even then, the way these things are neatly distributed throughout related taxa would certainly lead one to the conclusion that God was trying to make it look as if common ancestry were true.

Another thought I had was that the flipping of switches that has been observed seems to take place in the very young, does it not? It doesn’t seem so surprising that the genome might “solidify” gradually over the earliest stages of development, such that it’s too late for granny mouse with diabetes or even young adults to be nurtured into good health. What this might mean for this biological explanation for the Fall is striking, as it would imply that only the sins of young children (if not infants) could affect our genome, and hence our nature.

I am curious: do you know if it has been shown that the young nurtured into good health have offspring whose switches were all naturally flipped the right way? In other words, did their nurture permanently affect the genome they pass on to their offspring? If this does not happen, this would be problematic for an inherited Fall, or so methinks.