Adam and Eve

[Inigo Montoya]

From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.

What about it, folks? What does/can DNA, genetics, and Mendel do to establish Adam and Eve as the most plausible explanation for our origins?

[mgb]

No one comes to a belief in all that through logic and reason. It is only through indoctrination and the appeal to faith. That applies to all religions.

That is entirely simplistic. Many prople don't believe through indoctrination. And many religious people have very reasonable reasons for what they believe.

[Danmark]

the vast majority of believers do NOT base their beliefs on direct revelation;

Majorities don't constitute truth.

Correct. The one guy who claims to have had divine revelation from a unicorn, telling him that the unicorn is God who created a flat Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago might be right and the 10 billion who didn't receive this 'divine revelation' may be wrong. But I wouldn't bet on it.

The 99.99 percent of scientists who believe in evolution, gravity and a spherical earth that goes around the sun may be wrong, but I'm betting they are correct.

[Danmark]

From what I know about the nature of DNA, genetics and Mendels laws of genetics (namely that are inherent species limitations imposed by the genetic makeup of all living things) the account about Adam and Eve, ie two humans parenting the human race, seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of our origins.

What about it, folks? What does/can DNA, genetics, and Mendel do to establish Adam and Eve as the most plausible explanation for our origins?

Nothing. Just the opposite in fact. The idea that homo sapiens, just two of them, suddenly appeared out of nowhere contradicts everything we know about nature.

Not only do the Genesis creation accounts (borrowed from other, earlier cultures) contain many elements that contradict what nature tells us, they provide nothing that was inconsistent with the human derived erroneous beliefs about the cosmos that were present at the time. In other words, the Genesis account is exactly what we would expect to see if humans from 2000 BCE (with no help from a god) concocted an imagined explanation.

What is striking about the Genesis account is that it wholly fails to describe the reality we would expect it to if it was inspired by an actual designer/creator of the universe.

There is no mention of a spherical Earth, nothing about the heliocentric nature of the solar system; nothing about the concept that the revolution of the Earth accounts for the existence of a 24 hour day and night phenomenon; nothing about the variation of the species via evolution. Rather there is much that directly contradicts competent observation of nature.

This is one reason I'm fascinated by religious belief, particularly scripturally based beliefs. The scripture directly contradict much that is directly observed about nature, but rather than discard such irrational beliefs, rationality itself is discarded.

Whaddaya gonna believe, the Bible or your own two eyes?

[mgb]

There is no mention of a spherical Earth, nothing about the heliocentric nature of the solar system; nothing about the concept that the revolution of the Earth accounts for the existence of a 24 hour day and night phenomenon; nothing about the variation of the species via evolution. Rather there is much that directly contradicts competent observation of nature.

This is one reason I'm fascinated by religious belief, particularly scripturally based beliefs. The scripture directly contradict much that is directly observed about nature, but rather than discard such irrational beliefs, rationality itself is discarded.

You are expecting the bible to be a literal description. Genesis is an allegory about creation, it is not meant to be literal. Religious writing uses images to describe reality and it is a mistake to take the images literally. Science is the same. Down through the ages different models of the atom were put forward-

Democritus described the atom as a sphere, Rutherford described it as a currant bun, the electrons being the currants embedded in the bun/nucleus. Then the miniature solar system model came about, and now atoms are seen as potentialities in wave functions. All of these images were and are useful for doing practical science but it would be a mistake to take them as literal descriptions. What matters is that they are useful.

Likewise with religious imagery, they are descriptions of God and of spiritual reality. To take them literally and criticize them on that basis is to misunderstand the language of myth, allegory and imagery.

[brunumb]

No one comes to a belief in all that through logic and reason. It is only through indoctrination and the appeal to faith. That applies to all religions.

That is entirely simplistic. Many prople don't believe through indoctrination. And many religious people have very reasonable reasons for what they believe.

Not so. The vast majority of belief is inculcated into young minds from the day they are born. The evidence is all around you. Parents make every effort to ensure that their children accept their own religion as true. Take Christianity for example. Constant reference to their God, prayers at mealtime, regular attendance at church, Jesus Camp and other instructional activities like Preschool devotions, Good News Club, and so on, all serve to instill belief in a mind that is not yet capable of rational thought and evaluation.

Once the young mind has been wired to believe without question, it becomes resistant to challenge. When older, the method changes to retrofitting reasons with spurious explanations of alleged visits from a Holy Spirit and having an understanding of the Bible that only God can give. There is a whole machinery actively churning out untested explanations of phenomena that scientific enquiry has clearly shown have no supernatural origin. Ultimately, the reasons for believing are manufactured and not based on any compelling evidence for the truth of a belief.

Christian families propagate Christianity. Muslim families propagate Islam. Hindu families propagate Hinduism. The list goes on. It is a very effective method because young minds are very receptive, trusting and eager to learn. Later on, the consequences of questioning faith or going against the family and the community can be observed, and they are often dire.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 63 by mgb]

Democritus described the atom as a sphere, Rutherford described it as a currant bun, the electrons being the currants embedded in the bun/nucleus. Then the miniature solar system model came about, and now atoms are seen as potentialities in wave functions. All of these images were and are useful for doing practical science but it would be a mistake to take them as literal descriptions. What matters is that they are useful.

In the model proposed by Leucippus and Democritus matter was made if tiny indestructible particles of different size and shape. After discovery of the electron, J. J. Thomson proposed the plum pudding model as an explanation of what was known about atoms at that time. Rutherford's famous gold foil experiment led to the discovery of the nucleus and he proposed that atoms were mostly empty space with electrons orbiting the tiny nucleus. Each model replaced the previous model as required by knowledge gained from scientific investigation. Thomson's model was meant to be a literal description but it was subsequently shown to be wrong. It was not useful in any practical sense.

The Bible contains descriptions of the universe that are based on nothing more than guesswork, and they are meant to be taken literally. There is no process by which those descriptions are tested for merit or changed based on new information. They are not useful and are provably wrong. What processes do exist are only intent on trying to make them appear legitimate.

[Danmark]

There is no mention of a spherical Earth, nothing about the heliocentric nature of the solar system; nothing about the concept that the revolution of the Earth accounts for the existence of a 24 hour day and night phenomenon; nothing about the variation of the species via evolution. Rather there is much that directly contradicts competent observation of nature.

This is one reason I'm fascinated by religious belief, particularly scripturally based beliefs. The scripture directly contradict much that is directly observed about nature, but rather than discard such irrational beliefs, rationality itself is discarded.

You are expecting the bible to be a literal description.

No, I do not. But many evangelicals treat it that way. I agree that Genesis is allegorical. That is what myths are. However many Christians use the Bible in general and Genesis in particular as if it not only should be taken as literal, historical truth and claiming the words prove their god exists, but they use those
same myths to dispute science. Then when their approach fails miserably, they claim it isn't a science book or, as in this case, that it should not be taken literally.

[mgb]

Correct. The one guy who claims to have had divine revelation from a unicorn, telling him that the unicorn is God who created a flat Earth in 6 days 6000 years ago might be right and the 10 billion who didn't receive this 'divine revelation' may be wrong. But I wouldn't bet on it.

I have been away from this forum for a while and having come back I see the same old rhetoric; cherrypicking the worst parts of religion as if they were characteristic of all religion. To do this is to descend to the level of Dawkins' bombastic rhetoric or, worse still, the pernicious and shallow propaganda of Sam Harris. This kind of talk ensures the discussion will never go beyond juvenile knee-jerk soundbites. To portray religion in these terms is like portraying science in terms of phlogiston, and 'earth, air, fire and water'.

You may, as I do, have reservations about people who believe the earth is 6000 years old but you cannot seriously think that writers like Kahlil Gibran, Simone Weil etc hold these beliefs. You should try to address the more well thought out aspects of religion instead of constantly reverting to this vitriolic nonsense.

However many Christians use the Bible in general and Genesis in particular as if it not only should be taken as literal, historical truth and claiming the words prove their god exists, but they use those same myths to dispute science.

But these are not the only kind of religious people. I never said I believe the earth is 6000 years old or that science is wrong. You don't even know what I think true religion is because threads such as this never go anywhere because the level of conversation is kept on an entirely superficial and propagandist level.

Christian families propagate Christianity. Muslim families propagate Islam. Hindu families propagate Hinduism. The list goes on. It is a very effective method because young minds are very receptive, trusting and eager to learn. Later on, the consequences of questioning faith or going against the family and the community can be observed, and they are often dire.

Communists treat science in the same way; science, they teach, can answer everything. I don't believe in any kind of indoctrination but I don't see what is wrong with people passing on their beliefs. Would you say it is wrong to teach children that science will eventually explain the nature of being? Besides, many children dismiss much of what their parents teach them.

No matter what way you look at it, most people simply will not think for themselves. They prefer not to; the simplest understanding of society will tell you this; people believe what the 'experts' tell them; they will go to war because of political knavery and propaganda; they believe what televisions tell them; they wear what they see others wearing; their urban myths are thoughtlessly absorbed from the internet and media; most people are content to be told what to think; this is just the way the world is; drug addicted pop stars and celebrities have become the new priesthood - let's see whether they will do a better job. (Pop stars and celebrities probably have more influence on culture than science does)

But when I talk about religious people I am talking about thoughtful belief, not belief that is merely handed down.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 67 by mgb]

But when I talk about religious people I am talking about thoughtful belief, not belief that is merely handed down.

What exactly is thoughtful belief?

I don't believe in any kind of indoctrination but I don't see what is wrong with people passing on their beliefs. Would you say it is wrong to teach children that science will eventually explain the nature of being?

Passing on unsubstantiated notions and concepts as truth is wrong. That is he we get anti-vaxers putting the health of the community at risk. It is how we get unscrupulous 'mediums' ripping off vulnerable people seeking solace after losing loved ones. It is how children die because their parents refuse life-saving medical treatment. The list goes on and on. If the existence of God is true, then there should be no reason why people can't discover that when they are old enough to make informed decisions. But I think that believers are too afraid to take the risk of waiting. Faith is really a fragile thing.

Who teaches that science will eventually explain the nature of being? This is just a furphy. Most scientists will admit that we can never know everything. On the other hand, look at how much the scientific method has revealed in only a few centuries. Science helps us find answers. Religion just invents them.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 67 by mgb]

Mgb: �I have been away from this forum for a while and having come back I see the same old rhetoric; cherrypicking the worst parts of religion as if they were characteristic of all religion. To do this is to descend to the level of Dawkins' bombastic rhetoric or, worse still, the pernicious and shallow propaganda of Sam Harris. This kind of talk ensures the discussion will never go beyond juvenile knee-jerk soundbites. To portray religion in these terms is like portraying science in terms of phlogiston, and 'earth, air, fire and water'.�

Oh, my! Dawkins is accused of “bombastic rhetoric�, Sam Harris of “pernicious and shallow propaganda�. Perhaps it would seem less like projection to address their arguments, rather than just make unsupported accusations. We will take it as a given that they frighten or offend you.

Mgb: �You may, as I do, have reservations about people who believe the earth is 6000 years old but you cannot seriously think that writers like Kahlil Gibran, Simone Weil etc hold these beliefs. You should try to address the more well thought out aspects of religion instead of constantly reverting to this vitriolic nonsense.�

Please feel free to invoke the content of your authoritative sources. Don't just drop names. We don't often see Gibran or Weil cited here, nor their arguments or assertions presented. I read some stuff by Gibran fifty years ago, and have only sampled Weil recently. I smelled the overpowering scent of “woo�. I was raised Roman Catholic and from an admittedly small sample of her writing found nothing new.
If you think these folks have something to say, cite or quote them. Feel free to pick cherries, we want only the best.

Mgb: �But these are not the only kind of religious people.�

And schizophrenics are not the only sort of insane people. Some insane people are dangerous and some are harmless cranks, but they are all insane. Just so, religious folks seem to believe all sorts of nonsense, but it always seems to be based on unsupported superstitions, and ancient misconceptions.

Mgb: �I never said I believe the earth is 6000 years old or that science is wrong. You don't even know what I think true religion is because threads such as this never go anywhere because the level of conversation is kept on an entirely superficial and propagandist level.�

Feel free to enlighten us about your position, instead of spouting accusations of “bombastic rhetoric� and “pernicious and shallow propaganda� "on an entirely superficial and propagandist level.�. Don't just drop the names of those authors who believe as you do, but trot out their arguments, or even your own.

Mgb: �Communists treat science in the same way; science, they teach, can answer everything.�

What's this? A corollary of Godwin's Law!? Are you going to raise the specter of “Communism� which is an economic theory, having little or nothing to do with religion or science? The early Christians tried communism but found out they weren't up to it morally. Too many of them cheated. Marx regarded religion as an opiate, an addiction, a comfort that cripples. Strangely enough, the sociologists have come to agree: Religion is an index of misery, the symptom of a corrupt and unjust society.

Mgb: �I don't believe in any kind of indoctrination but I don't see what is wrong with people passing on their beliefs. Would you say it is wrong to teach children that science will eventually explain the nature of being? Besides, many children dismiss much of what their parents teach them.�

So, imposing nonsense on impressionable minds, threatening eternal torment for disbelief is “passing on their beliefs� and not indoctrination? I applaud those who pass on the best information available, but have little respect for those who pass on discredited superstitions from bronze age primitives who sacrificed animals on altars, and thought the world was flat and covered by a “firmament�.

Mgb: �No matter what way you look at it, most people simply will not think for themselves. They prefer not to; the simplest understanding of society will tell you this; people believe what the 'experts' tell them; they will go to war because of political knavery and propaganda; they believe what televisions tell them; they wear what they see others wearing; their urban myths are thoughtlessly absorbed from the internet and media; most people are content to be told what to think; this is just the way the world is; drug addicted pop stars and celebrities have become the new priesthood - let's see whether they will do a better job. (Pop stars and celebrities probably have more influence on culture than science does)�

And, especially here in the US, the “experts� are preachers, priests, prophets and popes. If people get their values from pop stars and celebrities it might be because the voids in their lives can't be filled with ridiculous myths.
The difference between science and religion is that science works. Millions of people praying for thousands of years did not eradicate smallpox. Science did.

Mgb: �But when I talk about religious people I am talking about thoughtful belief, not belief that is merely handed down.�

And the “true Scotsman� arrives with bagpipes blaring and kilts flapping. Why don't you silence the drones and give us the tune on the chanter.