Archives for “Common descent”
Since at least the time of C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man up until quite recently in Francis Collins’s The Language of God, as well as among Vatican theologians, it has been argued that at some indeterminate time within our species’ evolution from primates, there was a special endowment from God upon our ancestors whereupon we knew right from wrong and morality was born. Further, it is argued that natural processes cannot explain humanity’s innate sense of right and wrong (regardless of the fact that it differs somewhat from culture to culture). This “Moral Law” argument seems to be the last God-of-the-gaps holdout for otherwise progressive theologians who accept common descent.
On the other side, atheists enjoy knocking this argument down. Despite Collins’s assertion that there is not likely to be any research that shows a naturalistic explanation of human conceptions of morality, there is indeed much promising research in that regard, much of which is highly suggestive of just such an explanation, even if the details are not all filled in yet (cf. the fossil record). This is how Steve Wiggins recently summarized the naturalistic explanation:
- My position on the origins question Josh recently commented on another thread, “I want to hear your explanation of the origin of life on earth. I have heard the positions you are against. So how did...
- How useful are “pointers”? Dr. Francis Collins is a remarkable man. He was the director of the phenomenally successful Human Genome Project that mapped the entire human genome years ahead of schedule. He’s a...
- Non sequitur, thy name is Gary! Okay, okay. Don’t read this if it annoys you when I call out Gary DeMar on his incessant Campaign for Idiocy. I questioned whether I should even bother writing this,...
Christians coming to terms with evolution, including many ID advocates who acknowledge common descent, will often arrive at a midpoint of sorts between denial of evolution and all-out theistic evolution (or evolutionary creation) that acknowledges that we are by-products of evolution and seeks to hold the line on the most theologically problematic aspect of evolutionary theory: the historicity of Adam and Eve. For many, this is a comfortable resting place and they remain content acknowledging the deafening scientific consensus of common descent on one hand and believing in a literal first human pair on the other.
This is often done by positing a bottleneck of the population down to two individuals, often misunderstanding the unfortunately ambiguous terms Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam. The more sophisticated (but odd) way of doing this is to allow there to have been more than two at the time of Adam and Eve, but to posit that the Fall event occurred to them uniquely, and that the effects have passed down to later humanity through descent from them.
Related posts:- The trouble with intramural accommodationism Can one be consistent in accepting both the common form of inerrancy as described in the Chicago Statement and universal common descent? This question is something I struggle with when...
- Dembski on theodicy and a young earth William Dembski, a father of the Intelligent Design movement, has recently become comfortable calling himself an old earth creationist who, as a good Baptist, accepts the historicity of Adam and...
- The Bible and the need for proof In his latest post, Mike mentions a Facebook conversation with someone puzzled by his rejection of inerrancy; I was involved with the conversation as well. As Mike described, this individual...
Can one be consistent in accepting both the common form of inerrancy as described in the Chicago Statement and universal common descent?
This question is something I struggle with when I observe people try to sell other believers on evolutionary theory without openly acknowledging the ways in which their own rejection of the idea of a single pair of progenitors has resulted in an often subtle yet usually profound modification of how they understand the Bible to work. I, too, have been tempted on numerous occasions to begin the presentation of my case by positing a (purely hypothetical) scenario in which accepting that early Genesis was unhistorical does not result in a revised or nuanced bibliology; if not outright dishonest, I feel that this approach is nonetheless misleading, perhaps even disingenuous, and a setup for problems later.
Related posts:- Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation,...
- Human interpretations of Scripture and nature This is long for a “quote of the day,” but it’s so well stated that I couldn’t resist. It’s from an article by Kenton Sparks, author of God’s Word in...
- Why the debate over creationism matters Recently I have been involved in a couple conversations with folks who aren’t really “informed” (I use the term loosely) creationists but have been hounded enough by creationists/biblical literalists who...
Enjoy these latest videos from the very creative Gordon J. Glover, the first in a series of videos having a little fun critiquing Intelligent Design.
http://www.youtube.com/v/iE5JIzJ0yUs
http://www.youtube.com/v/pqVJsmYJvDQ
And while I’m linking around, check out Tom Jefferson’s Mike Beidler’s witty and semi-satirical Evolutionary Creationist’s Declaration of Independence.
- Why I am convinced of common descent (and why I think you should be, too) These well-made videos from the Cassiopeia Project are excellent and accessible primers about evolutionary theory. I appreciate that, despite their emphasis on why the evidence is clearly and uniformly in...
- Lamoureux: links and labels Mike Beidler over at The Creation of an Evolutionist has a post up with a link to an overall excellent interview with the brilliant Denis Lamoureux, author of Evolutionary Creation,...
- Enemies united against an imaginary foe I’ve been quite vocal on this blog in pointing out my disagreements with the Christian critics of science (ID advocates and other creationists). Unfortunately, these special creationists have had quite...
These well-made videos from the Cassiopeia Project are excellent and accessible primers about evolutionary theory. I appreciate that, despite their emphasis on why the evidence is clearly and uniformly in favor of evolutionary theory, they’re not polemical about specific claims or objections from evolution critics. There’s no slapping anyone around; the overwhelming evidence for common descent is just presented on its own terms.
There will no doubt be lingering questions about specific creationist claims and objections. But on the whole, I can’t imagine that evolution skeptics will be able to watch all of these and still automatically impute the worst motives for why Christians like me, who might have been otherwise content to hang onto the typical Protestant interpretation of Genesis, have become convinced of common descent. The scientific data is so compelling.
Related posts:- Detecting design and declaring independence Enjoy these latest videos from the very creative Gordon J. Glover, the first in a series of videos having a little fun critiquing Intelligent Design. http://www.youtube.com/v/iE5JIzJ0yUs http://www.youtube.com/v/pqVJsmYJvDQ And while I’m linking around,...
- Another one bites the dust Do you believe that the theory of evolution has never been observed? That it is purely theoretical and has never been, can never be, demonstrated in the laboratory? Well, it...
- Missing link found? From Missing Link: Scientists In New York Unveil Fossil Of Lemur Monkey Hailed As Man’s Earliest Ancestor from Sky News: Scientists have unveiled a 47-million-year-old fossilised skeleton of a monkey...