Francis Collins interviewed in <i>Times Book Review</i>

I take it he read Mere before he developed critical thinking skills?

My understanding is that mostly just Christians read apologetic work in order to re-enforce their faith with "logic" without actually leaving the cultural bubble and learning logic, so how much is Collins compartmentalizing here?

This from the man who evolved the belief that his daughter's rape was god punishing HIM!? Narcissism!

In my own life I’ve been spared many experiences of suffering, but not all. My own daughter, as a college student, was raped by a man who broke into her apartment in the middle of the night, a terrible experience that has left her affected for her whole life. But at the same time, looking at that experience one has to wonder, could God have prevented that? Should we blame God for not doing so? This was an act of free will by somebody who in a very criminal, awful way chose to exercise it. And could we even in that terrible circumstance be able to identify something that came out of this that was positive? My daughter would say yes now. So God’s perspective is different than ours. I don’t think God is the author of suffering. But if God were to intervene in every instance where suffering was about to occur, this would be a very chaotic and confused world. At some level, we learn most at those times where we’re going through suffering. [C.S.] Lewis, again, says God whispers when things are going well. He shouts in those difficult times. It’s his megaphone to rouse a deaf world. I think, in my own life, that’s been true. I haven’t learned very much when everything was going swimmingly. I’ve learned a lot when things were tough.

Matt Young said: Did Collins really say that? Here is what he said on PBS:

In my own life I’ve been spared many experiences of suffering...

I see no hint that he thought God was punishing him or anyone else. Have I missed something?

Matt Young- take a look at the passage from The Language of God and see how you interprete it. He describes the rape as a challenge for him to learn the meaning of forgiveness. The question is, was the challenge given by God or simply due to the nature of the experience. I may have to back off from my harsh statement if others can help me understand what he meant, since I find writing more ambiguous than I remember.

take a look at the passage from The Language of God and see how you interprete it. He describes the rape as a challenge for him to learn the meaning of forgiveness.

I have the opposite impression of C. S. Lewis. I mainly love the Narnia books. The lesser ones can get a bit heavy-handed, but I always enjoyed them. Therefore I gave his more overtly Christian stuff a chance. I found it so tiresome and unconvincing that it may have played a minor role in my realization that I just don't and can't believe in supernatural beings. (I'm about as non-religious as it's possible to be, because I tried to be religious and failed. A lot of atheists were either traumatized by some harsh, bigoted religious sect, or were raised by atheist parents and given approval for choosing atheism. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but I was raised in a "nice" religion [certainly nicer that C. S. Lewis, although that isn't saying much] that respected and encouraged education.)

As for Francis Collins, I have no problem with him. I would also have no problem if he went home from the lab and performed absolutions to members of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon after work. I don't care that he "compartmentalizes". That's his business. He can ask for my advice if he wants it. I have a problem with authoritarians who want to force science denial and involuntary genuflection to their absurd, self-serving, hypocritical, post-modern version of Christianity.

"In my case I can see, albeit dimly, that my daughter's rape was a challenge for me to try to learn the real meaning of forgiveness in a terribly wrenching circumstance."

Already I have to change the word "punish" to "teach a lesson". There is an extensive discussion of this at Jerry Coyne's website from 2009.

harold said: A lot of atheists were either traumatized by some harsh, bigoted religious sect, or were raised by atheist parents and given approval for choosing atheism. There's nothing wrong with any of that, but I was raised in a "nice" religion [certainly nicer that C. S. Lewis, although that isn't saying much] that respected and encouraged education.) As for Francis Collins, I have no problem with him. I would also have no problem if he went home from the lab and performed absolutions to members of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon after work. I don't care that he "compartmentalizes". That's his business. He can ask for my advice if he wants it. I have a problem with authoritarians who want to force science denial and involuntary genuflection to their absurd, self-serving, hypocritical, post-modern version of Christianity.

Let's never forget that Collins' BioLogos Foundation has "no position" on the question of the existence of Adam and Eve.

If you want dualism and compartmentalization, I can't think of much better than the Platonism of Lewis.

Glen Davidson

Matt G said: "In my case I can see, albeit dimly, that my daughter's rape was a challenge for me to try to learn the real meaning of forgiveness in a terribly wrenching circumstance." Already I have to change the word "punish" to "teach a lesson". There is an extensive discussion of this at Jerry Coyne's website from 2009.

Logic, scepticism, and peer review levels of accountability are not simply methods, they are standards, principles and picking and choosing when to use them is hypocrisy.

harold said: I have the opposite impression of C. S. Lewis. I mainly love the Narnia books...

Let’s never forget that Collins’ BioLogos Foundation has “no position” on the question of the existence of Adam and Eve

Matt G said: Let's never forget that Collins' BioLogos Foundation has "no position" on the question of the existence of Adam and Eve.

Steve Schaffner said: No reason they should, is there? At least no scientific reason.

Maybe their existence doesn't necessarily rule out existence of other people someplace that's else?

MaskedQuoll said:

Steve Schaffner said: No reason they should, is there? At least no scientific reason.

You mean, something like a large body of scientific evidence that the human population was not bottlenecked down to two individuals in its recent genetic history? Twice (Noachic flood as well)?

Steve Schaffner said:

MaskedQuoll said:

Steve Schaffner said: No reason they should, is there? At least no scientific reason.

You mean, something like a large body of scientific evidence that the human population was not bottlenecked down to two individuals in its recent genetic history? Twice (Noachic flood as well)?

No, I don't mean that. Biologos already has that evidence all over its website. I mean some scientific reason to reject the idea that Adam and Eve were real humans who were members of a larger population.

You have a point. I have known people named Adam, and also known people named Eve.

MaskedQuoll has already answered your question. Human genetic diversity cannot be traced to two individuals, though I strongly suggest you investigate Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. The smallest the Homo sapiens population has ever been is about 1200 reproductively active individuals about 60k years ago (IIRC). I'll send you a link to that reference if you like.

The point is that if Adam and Eve aren't a bottleneck of two, then they aren't what the bible means by Adam and Eve. You should think about what it means (or doesn't mean) to say that Adam and Eve existed. We can all agree that there were various human couples in the past. What makes Adam and Eve a specific couple? They're the ones the story happened to. Now, we can jettison aspects of the story that don't work scientifically (animals created after Adam, Eve made from a rib, parents of all humans, talking snake, etc.) and retain what's left. But what's left? Nothing of interest to Christians or anyone else. And that's why Biologos should take a position, assuming it's interested in scientific evidence and such.

Matt G said: The smallest the Homo sapiens population has ever been is about 1200 reproductively active individuals about 60k years ago (IIRC).

Just Bob said:

Matt G said: The smallest the Homo sapiens population has ever been is about 1200 reproductively active individuals about 60k years ago (IIRC).

...who have descendants today. There likely were many more humans at the time, but they have no living descendants, correct? (IANAS)

Matt G said: MaskedQuoll has already answered your question. Human genetic diversity cannot be traced to two individuals, though I strongly suggest you investigate Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. The smallest the Homo sapiens population has ever been is about 1200 reproductively active individuals about 60k years ago (IIRC). I'll send you a link to that reference if you like.

John Harshman said: The point is that if Adam and Eve aren't a bottleneck of two, then they aren't what the bible means by Adam and Eve. You should think about what it means (or doesn't mean) to say that Adam and Eve existed. We can all agree that there were various human couples in the past. What makes Adam and Eve a specific couple? They're the ones the story happened to. Now, we can jettison aspects of the story that don't work scientifically (animals created after Adam, Eve made from a rib, parents of all humans, talking snake, etc.) and retain what's left. But what's left? Nothing of interest to Christians or anyone else. And that's why Biologos should take a position, assuming it's interested in scientific evidence and such.

Matt G said: Right - these methods can only estimate that, hence the "reproductively active" part. For example, there was a population which occupied England before it was an island! After the English Channel was carved out 150-200k years ago by a massive flood (caused by the breaking of an ice dam, not god...), the subsequently isolated population apparently died off, and England was not recolonized until quite recently. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Doyle describes ancient stone dwellings, and I wonder if he didn't make them up.

Steve Schaffner said: They're not in the business of dictating theology; they're trying to get evangelicals to accept the results of science. For that purpose, it doesn't matter at all whether somebody thinks Adam and Eve existed or not, as long as they accept the clear conclusions of science about human history.

Steve Schaffner said: In a word, no. There are theologians and Old Testament scholars who think that Adam and Eve were historical figures, that they were part of a larger population,

and that the Genesis story about them is both true (if not entirely literal)

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Carl Drews said: According to Genesis 4, there were other hominids around at the time of Adam and Eve:

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

I don't think that Cain was afraid of his threatening older sisters. And this remark is delivered before the birth of Seth (Genesis 4:25).

John Harshman said:

Carl Drews said: According to Genesis 4, there were other hominids around at the time of Adam and Eve: 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” I don't think that Cain was afraid of his threatening older sisters. And this remark is delivered before the birth of Seth (Genesis 4:25).

Other than "Genesis isn't self-consistent", was there another point?

There are theologians and Old Testament scholars who think that Adam and Eve were historical figures, that they were part of a larger population, and that the Genesis story about them is both true (if not entirely literal) and meaningful for Christians.

Carl Drews said:

John Harshman said:

Carl Drews said: According to Genesis 4, there were other hominids around at the time of Adam and Eve: 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” I don't think that Cain was afraid of his threatening older sisters. And this remark is delivered before the birth of Seth (Genesis 4:25).

Other than "Genesis isn't self-consistent", was there another point?

The creationist claim that Adam and Eve were at one time the only bipedal hominids on the planet is not supported by the Genesis text. Which is what Steve Schaffner said earlier; I supplied the biblical text in support of that larger population, for lurkers who are not familiar with Cain's fear of getting killed.

There are theologians and Old Testament scholars who think that Adam and Eve were historical figures, that they were part of a larger population, and that the Genesis story about them is both true (if not entirely literal) and meaningful for Christians.

And Cain married, uh, somebody.

Adam and Eve? One should never make the rather embarrassing mistake that the Evangelical/fundamentalist communities make - that of reading Bronze age (?) myths about the origin of man literally. The story served a purpose to its original author - and that purpose was for an audience that lived long, long ago. Many "liberal" Christians except this point, and that is good.

Note I'm not commenting on theism in general here, just pointing out that it is not worth getting excited about a wrong interpretation of an ancient document. To give the ancients their due, one should read them on their own terms. If anything, attack the modern ignoramuses (ignorami ?) that insist on such decontextualized literalism. After all, one of their own, the fiery Ulsterman Ian Paisley said that "a text taken out of context becomes a pretext". We will do well in remembering that.

Ed LeCore said: But on an individual level we are dealing with an issue of consistency, though Collins does understand logic and the scientific method, which is more than most, it is undermined by this dual realities/epistemologies. Logic, scepticism, and peer review levels of accountability are not simply methods, they are standards, principles and picking and choosing when to use them is hypocrisy.

eric said: I keep hearing this argument on the web, and frankly I can't see it as anything except baloney. A person who consistently applied a single set of standards and principles to every aspect of life would be pretty close to being a psychopath. They would react with lethal force or assault charges to a football tackle because they would reject the notion that games can have different standards and methods for evaluating evidence. They would reject the right of courts of law to find them guilty because everyone knows a hand vote is not how science works. They would reject the right of judges to decide what counts as admissable evidence. They would demand equally high-confidence and validated procedures for the claims "the mass of the higgs boson is 125 GeV" and "honey, I love you." A single, universally applied, context-independent epistomology is insane. Nobody actually has one, and nobody should have one. Its utterly naive to think that such a thing could ever be a good thing. I would go so far as to say that our ability to change our definitions of 'correct methodolgy,' 'evidence' and 'appropriate reasoning' is the result of a more general positive adaptation that has evolved in most larger mammals - the ability to use play to learn critical survival skills. In order to learn by playing, you first have to recognize that a play context is different from a non-play one, and apply different behavioral and reasoning rules to each. Many animals have learned how to do that, and they have gained by it. The issue with creationism is not that context-based reasoning is bad. It isn't - instead, its an extremely powerful tool that we frankly gain a lot of benefit from having in our toolbox. The issue with creationism is misusing this ability: carving out a special context or special practice for a different epistemology when there is no good reason for different treatment. That's the issue here. Not "why do you treat anything nonscientifically?" - which is a stupid question, but "why do you treat this subject in particular nonscientifically?" Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now.

Carl Drews said: The creationist claim that Adam and Eve were at one time the only bipedal hominids on the planet is not supported by the Genesis text. Which is what Steve Schaffner said earlier; I supplied the biblical text in support of that larger population, for lurkers who are not familiar with Cain's fear of getting killed.

John Harshman said: But there are plenty of other texts that deny that anyone other than Adam, Eve, and their sons (and perhaps unmentioned daughters) existed. It's clear that A and E are intended to be the sole ancestors of all people

Other than “Genesis isn’t self-consistent”

Genesis 4:16-17 King James Version (KJV) 16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

As a topic check, Francis Collins and Biologos are assuring creationists that there are acceptable interpretations of Genesis 1-4 that are consistent with biological evolution and science in general.

John Harshman said:

Steve Schaffner said: They're not in the business of dictating theology; they're trying to get evangelicals to accept the results of science. For that purpose, it doesn't matter at all whether somebody thinks Adam and Eve existed or not, as long as they accept the clear conclusions of science about human history.

I can agree that an Adam and Eve stripped of all objective meaning can't be falsified, at least by biology. If that's what they aren't taking a position on, I can see it. They can still take a position on the nature of the story, i.e. that biology presents certain constraints: if they existed, they were not in fact the first pair, not the universal and exclusive ancestors of all living humans. Do they do that? And they can consider other elements too: creation of Adam from dust of the ground, Eve from his rib, creation of the animals, and the talking snake theory. Do they do that?

Studies based on SNP/LD approaches have now estimated ancestral population dynamics for various human groups over time in more detail than is possible with mutation-based estimates. African groups have a higher effective population size (~7,000) than do non-African groups (~3,000) over the last 200,000 years.46 This approach, though based on methods and assumptions independent of previous work, nonetheless continues to support the conclusion that humans, as a species, are descended from an ancestral population of at least several thousand individuals. More importantly, the scalability of this approach reveals that there was no significant change in human population size at the time modern humans appeared in the fossil record (~200,000 years ago), or at the time of significant cultural and religious development at ~50,000 years ago.47 Taken individually and collectively, population genomics studies strongly suggest that our lineage has not experienced an extreme population bottleneck in the last nine million years or more (and thus not in any hominid, nor even an australopithecine species), and that any bottlenecks our lineage did experience were a reduction only to a population of several thousand breeding individuals. As such, the hypothesis that humans are genetically derived from a single ancestral pair in the recent past has no support from a genomics perspective, and, indeed, is counter to a large body of evidence.

As I tell the creationists who make extra-Biblical claims - book, chapter, and verse, please.

MaskedQuoll said:

Steve Schaffner said: In a word, no. There are theologians and Old Testament scholars who think that Adam and Eve were historical figures, that they were part of a larger population,

As noted already, if Adam and Eve were not the first humans, specially created by Y_hw_h in His own image, then you are already at variance with the text of Genesis. It does not surprise nor impress me that there are theologians who believe strange and oxymoronic things, that is the business of theologians.

and that the Genesis story about them is both true (if not entirely literal)

You take liberties with the language. If you mean "true" in the sense of "not actually true," then please find a different word. There are many to choose from: meaningful, metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic; but "true" is not on the list.

...all I see is pissiness because Francis Collins found C.S. Lewis convincing. To be blunt, what the fuck is the matter with you guys?

Matt Young said: As a confirmed accommodationist...

phhht said:

Matt Young said: As a confirmed accommodationist...

I don't clearly understand what you mean by "accommodationist". I am a fundamentally empirical atheist, but I am also agnostic: I do know virtually nothing. I cannot be certain. I may well be wrong, and I may change my mind. A style of debate less aggressive than my own might be described as "accommodationist," but I think you mean more than style or tone. I'm sure we both support the First Amendment freedoms of belief and speech. If that were what you meant, then I might add "accommodationist" to my own list of rubrics, but I take it you accommodate religious belief beyond that, in some way. Do you mean that you are helpful or obliging to religious belief? Do you somehow make religious assertions congruous with empirical reality? Do you accommodate religious claims of counter-factual events? Do you accommodate the religious conviction that there exists some undetectable force which affects reality in ways that conflict with much of what we know? Do you accommodate a notion of the supernatural? What does that mean? How does that work for you?

Matt Young said:

...all I see is pissiness because Francis Collins found C.S. Lewis convincing. To be blunt, what the fuck is the matter with you guys?

As a confirmed accommodationist, I cannot complain when someone like Collins tries to educate evangelicals. But that does not make him immune to criticism.

Steve Schaffner said: Sorry, but discussing literary interpretation with someone who thinks that "metaphorical" is somehow inconsistent with "true" is really not worth the effort.

Just Bob said:

eric said: I keep hearing this argument on the web, and frankly I can't see it as anything except baloney. A person who consistently applied a single set of standards and principles to every aspect of life would be pretty close to being a psychopath. They would react with lethal force or assault charges to a football tackle because they would reject the notion that games can have different standards and methods for evaluating evidence. They would reject the right of courts of law to find them guilty because everyone knows a hand vote is not how science works. They would reject the right of judges to decide what counts as admissable evidence. They would demand equally high-confidence and validated procedures for the claims "the mass of the higgs boson is 125 GeV" and "honey, I love you." A single, universally applied, context-independent epistomology is insane. Nobody actually has one, and nobody should have one. Its utterly naive to think that such a thing could ever be a good thing. I would go so far as to say that our ability to change our definitions of 'correct methodolgy,' 'evidence' and 'appropriate reasoning' is the result of a more general positive adaptation that has evolved in most larger mammals - the ability to use play to learn critical survival skills. In order to learn by playing, you first have to recognize that a play context is different from a non-play one, and apply different behavioral and reasoning rules to each. Many animals have learned how to do that, and they have gained by it. The issue with creationism is not that context-based reasoning is bad. It isn't - instead, its an extremely powerful tool that we frankly gain a lot of benefit from having in our toolbox. The issue with creationism is misusing this ability: carving out a special context or special practice for a different epistemology when there is no good reason for different treatment. That's the issue here. Not "why do you treat anything nonscientifically?" - which is a stupid question, but "why do you treat this subject in particular nonscientifically?" Okay, I'll step off my soapbox now.

As a liberal arts person with a strong interest in science, I have to say that is very well said. Hear, hear.

Still, don’t you think it’s a little odd that the quotations you found most interesting “from our point of view” in the Collins interview were the ones that concerned faith and atheism, rather than the ones about reconciling Christianity with evolution?

I’m happy to say that there is a growing list of thoughtful commentaries on the harmony that can be found between these worldviews. For conservative Christians, “Coming to Peace With Science,” by Darrel Falk, and “Origins,” by Deborah and Loren Haarsma, are accessible and reassuring reads. Slightly edgier but very well-argued perspectives are provided by “Finding Darwin’s God,” by Kenneth Miller, and Karl Giberson’s “Saving Darwin.” For those who are interested in the range of options that can blend science and faith, I found Denis Alexander’s book “Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?” to be an exceptionally well-articulated synthesis. And if you are looking for a pastor’s perspective on faith and reason, have a look at “The Reason for God,” by the Rev. Tim Keller of New York’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church.

I don’t clearly understand what you mean by “accommodationist”.

Matt Young said:

I don’t clearly understand what you mean by “accommodationist”.

I suppose Random House came closest to what I have in mind: "a person who finds it expedient to adapt to the opinions or behavior of the majority of people, especially as a means of economic or political survival." Regarding the relation between atheism and religion, I paraphrase David Ben-Gurion: I will fight creationism as if there were no (other) religion and fight religion as if there were no creationism. I other words, I will applaud the efforts of a Francis Collins to educate the evangelicals, but I will still reserve the right to oppose religion in general. I consider those militant atheists who refuse to form alliances with the moderate religious to be self-destructive. I do not think accommodationism implies acceptance of religious beliefs, if by acceptance you mean admitting that they make sense. That does not mean I have no sympathy for the moderate religious; it means I think they are wrong. Please do not use this thread to discuss religion or atheism as such - just accommodationism, Francis Collins, pissiness, and so on.

John Harshman said:

As I tell the creationists who make extra-Biblical claims - book, chapter, and verse, please.

All from Genesis: 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” But this is the smoking apple: 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

The results can also work backwards, into the future. According to [Joseph T.] Chang, "Within two thousand years, it is likely that everyone on earth will be descended from most of us."

Matt Young said:

take a look at the passage from The Language of God and see how you interprete it. He describes the rape as a challenge for him to learn the meaning of forgiveness.

I am afraid I no longer have a copy of The Language of God, and I am sure others are in the same fortunate condition. Can you post the relevant passage?

In my case I can see, albeit dimly, that my daughter's rape was a challenge for me to try to learn the real meaning of forgiveness in a terribly wrenching circumstance. In complete honesty, I am still working on that. Perhaps this was also an opportunity for me to recognize that I could not truly protect my daughters from all pain and suffering; I had to learn to entrust them to God's loving care, knowing that this provided not an immunization from evil, but a reassurance that their suffering would not be in vain. Indeed, my daughter would say that this experience provided her with the opportunity and motivation to counsel and comfort others who have gone through the same kind of assault.

I work with scientists and engineers who don't believe in God. Does that count as accommodationism?

Carl Drews said: 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

TomS said:

Carl Drews said: 3:20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

I can't restrain myself any longer. Eve was not the mother of all the living. She was not the mother of Adam nor of Eve (just to restrict oneself to living humans). So much for literal interpretation.

Collins never says that God sent this horrible experience on his family.

I work with scientists and engineers who don’t believe in God. Does that count as accommodationism?

TomS said: I can't restrain myself any longer. Eve was not the mother of all the living. She was not the mother of Adam nor of Eve (just to restrict oneself to living humans). So much for literal interpretation.

MaskedQuoll said:

TomS said: I can't restrain myself any longer. Eve was not the mother of all the living. She was not the mother of Adam nor of Eve (just to restrict oneself to living humans). So much for literal interpretation.

She would become the mother of all the living. As in: after Adam and Eve were dead. The contradiction you see is not there.

Let’s never forget that Collins’ BioLogos Foundation has “no position” on the question of the existence of Adam and Eve.

The last thing I want to do is split hairs on biblical quotations. Just two points, though:

1. None of the Eden story makes sense unless Adam and Eve are intended to be the sole progenitors of all subsequent humans. You can parse it otherwise, but any other reading is forced and creates more problems than it solves. (The solution, of course, is that the story is fiction.)

2. That's hardly the silliest part of the story, which I think goes to God's futile search for a companion for Adam before finally hitting on a piece of his rib. Worth quoting in full:

2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Well, at least in that version, with the addition of the helpful helping verb "had", god didn't create all the animals on the spot to see if Adam would like any of them. But it's still very, very silly. "So, Adam, how about this beetle? No? Perhaps a water buffalo? OK. Here's a bustard I'm very fond of." Etc. How one can even try to salvage any kind of historicity out of that is beyond me.

John Harshman said: The last thing I want to do is split hairs on biblical quotations. Just two points, though: 1. None of the Eden story makes sense unless Adam and Eve are intended to be the sole progenitors of all subsequent humans. You can parse it otherwise, but any other reading is forced and creates more problems than it solves. (The solution, of course, is that the story is fiction.) 2. That's hardly the silliest part of the story, which I think goes to God's futile search for a companion for Adam before finally hitting on a piece of his rib. Worth quoting in full: 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Well, at least in that version, with the addition of the helpful helping verb "had", god didn't create all the animals on the spot to see if Adam would like any of them. But it's still very, very silly. "So, Adam, how about this beetle? No? Perhaps a water buffalo? OK. Here's a bustard I'm very fond of." Etc. How one can even try to salvage any kind of historicity out of that is beyond me.

The thing about the Collins quote about his daughter's rape is that he DIDN'T start with "My daughter's rape was a challenge for me...". Of course it would be a challenge to learn how to forgive that kind of violation - that is immediately obvious to anyone. How he DID start the sentence was "In my case I can see, albeit dimly, that my daughter's rape was a challenge for me...". What is there to "see, albeit dimly" about this? It is blindingly obvious that this would be challenging, so why is it so dim for him? His phrasing makes it sound a lot like he thought he was being tested (like Job, perhaps?), and that he was starting to understand that.

Steve Schaffner said: Frankly, this entire thread baffles me. Panda's Thumb claims to be devoted to promoting evolution and countering anti-evolutionary efforts. So here's a well-organized, quite competent effort to promote acceptance of evolution by the core of the creationist movement, American evangelicals. It presents completely conventional biology, it does so clearly, it's well funded and well publicized. Heck, they're actually teaching evolutionary biology to evangelical pastors. This is the most promising development in pushing back creationism since, well, ever. Everyone here should be giddy at the prospect. Instead, all I see is pissiness because Francis Collins found C.S. Lewis convincing. To be blunt, what the fuck is the matter with you guys?

One option is to view Adam and Eve as a historical pair living among many 10,000 years ago, chosen to represent the rest of humanity before God. Another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an allegory in which Adam and Eve symbolize the large group of ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. Yet another option is to view Genesis 2-4 as an “everyman” story, a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not take a particular view and encourages scholarly work on these questions.

As Steve Schaffner pointed out, the human population during the Neolithic Period was on the order of 10,000 individuals

As for Francis Collins, I have no problem with him. I would also have no problem if he went home from the lab and performed absolutions to members of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon after work. I don’t care that he “compartmentalizes”. That’s his business. He can ask for my advice if he wants it. I have a problem with authoritarians who want to force science denial and involuntary genuflection to their absurd, self-serving, hypocritical, post-modern version of Christianity.

Steve P. said: Harold...

Steve P. said: Moreso, I would say it is a key advantage. Religious scientists don't limit potential avenues of investigation simply because of cultural inhibitions. A-theists do.

As for Francis Collins, I have no problem with him. I would also have no problem if he went home from the lab and performed absolutions to members of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon after work. I don’t care that he “compartmentalizes”. That’s his business. He can ask for my advice if he wants it. I have a problem with authoritarians who want to force science denial and involuntary genuflection to their absurd, self-serving, hypocritical, post-modern version of Christianity.

I think whether somebody is accommodationist is a subjective judgment; roughly, if A calls B an accomodationist, it means that B puts less effort into resisting the common enemy than does A. So it's relative to the amount of energy that the speaker puts into whatever the fight is.

Henry

Keelyn said:

Steve P. said: Moreso, I would say it is a key advantage. Religious scientists don't limit potential avenues of investigation simply because of cultural inhibitions. A-theists do.

As for Francis Collins, I have no problem with him. I would also have no problem if he went home from the lab and performed absolutions to members of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon after work. I don’t care that he “compartmentalizes”. That’s his business. He can ask for my advice if he wants it. I have a problem with authoritarians who want to force science denial and involuntary genuflection to their absurd, self-serving, hypocritical, post-modern version of Christianity.

What potential avenues of investigation are you referring to?

According to Genesis 4, there were other hominids around at the time of Adam and Eve: 13 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

"None of the Eden story makes sense unless Adam and Eve are intended to be the sole progenitors of all subsequent humans."

First, Adam is called the “first man” (1 Corinthians 15:45). This is inconsistent with the idea that God created men before Adam. Second, according to La Peyrère (the popularizer of the "Pre-Adam" theory, for racial reasons--FL), the Gentiles were to live outside of the Garden of Eden while Adam enjoyed paradise, a privilege which came with the responsibility of obeying the Law of Paradise—not eating the forbidden fruit. Genesis 2:5-8, however, says quite plainly that before God created “the man whom He had formed,” the very same man which He placed in the garden, there were no men upon the earth to cultivate the ground. Third, God created Eve for Adam because he was alone, there was no one else like him around (“It is not good for the man to be alone… but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him” Genesis 2:18, 20). Fourth, Adam named his wife Eve "because she was the mother of all the living". -- M. Houdmann, "Does the Bible say anything about a pre-Adamic race?", GotQuestions.org

As for Cain’s fear of being lynched, his marriage to an unknown woman, and the fact that he founded a city (Genesis 4:14-17), Adam was almost 130 years old by the time that Cain killed Abel (Adam had Seth, his next son after Abel’s death, when he was about 130 years old; Genesis 4:25; 5:3). And we know that Adam had sons and daughters (Genesis 5:3). At 130 he could have had grandkids and great-grandkids by the time that Cain killed Abel. Cain had plenty of family members to be afraid of after killing his brother. Cain apparently married a family member (a necessity back then) at some point before Abel’s murder. It seems odd to us today, but incest wasn’t outlawed by God until the Law of Moses. It may have been around that time that generations of degenerative genetic mutations began to take a toll on our DNA. God outlawed incest for our protection. It became (and remains) dangerous for close relatives to procreate because of shared genetic defects which become expressed in their children causing severe deformities and other problems. As for Cain founding a city, if he lived to be the average age back then, he probably lived to be about 900 years old. By the time he died, his family would have been a small city. If Cain had a child at the age of 30, and his child had a child at the age of 30 and so on, Cain could have produced 30 generations by the time he died (30 generations times 30 years each equals 900 years). -- M. Houdmann, "Does the Bible say anything about a pre-Adamic race?", GotQuestions.org

Steve P. -

Instead of rambling about how other people should do science, why don't you get busy and do some ID science yourself?

Oh, and by the way...

FL -

This isn't a Biblical interpretation site. I realize you've probably been banned from most actual Biblical interpretation sites, but that doesn't make this into one.

Time to dump the troll to the bathroom wall, or just ban the bastard altogether.

harold said: Steve P. - Instead of rambling about how other people should do science, why don't you get busy and do some ID science yourself?

Just Bob said: And Cain married, uh, somebody.

MaskedQuoll:

What do you mean "even within his own family"? That's the only family there is, you know.

FL:

Attempting to turn Genesis into a self-consistent story is a fool's errand. You seem qualified.

harold said:

As Steve Schaffner pointed out, the human population during the Neolithic Period was on the order of 10,000 individuals

No, it was much larger than that during the neolithic period. This must have been a typo.

The Genographic Project's findings are also consistent with the idea - held for some years now - that modern humans had a close brush with extinction in the evolutionary past. The number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.

John Harshman said: The last thing I want to do is split hairs on biblical quotations. Just two points, though: 1. None of the Eden story makes sense unless Adam and Eve are intended to be the sole progenitors of all subsequent humans. You can parse it otherwise, but any other reading is forced and creates more problems than it solves. (The solution, of course, is that the story is fiction.) 2. That's hardly the silliest part of the story, which I think goes to God's futile search for a companion for Adam before finally hitting on a piece of his rib. Worth quoting in full: 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Well, at least in that version, with the addition of the helpful helping verb "had", god didn't create all the animals on the spot to see if Adam would like any of them. But it's still very, very silly. "So, Adam, how about this beetle? No? Perhaps a water buffalo? OK. Here's a bustard I'm very fond of." Etc. How one can even try to salvage any kind of historicity out of that is beyond me.

Carl,

Thanks for the reference.

it seems to me there is absolutely no reason why someone can’t be a committed Christian while also finding most of the Bible (particularly the Old Testament) historically hokum

Posted on the wall, but it seems it belongs here.

Someone pointed out above the silliness of the whole “Naming the Animals” business in Genesis, and how it reflects on the competence of a god who would need to try out every animal on Earth as “an help meet” before taking a chunk out of Adam to magically transform into Eve. It works in a Bible Stories for Children sort of way because you can show pictures of lots of cute animals. But for anyone over 6 it’s just silly, fairy tale sort of stuff.

The disguised truth behind the “Naming the Animals” episode:

It’s CODE. It was morphed into “naming” the animals by the rabbis who eventually wrote it down to protect the prudish sensibilities of innocent Hebrew maidens and little kiddies.

First, why would Adam need “an help meet” (KJV)? He doesn’t have to do any work, either to feed, shelter, protect, or even clothe himself. He lives in PARADISE. None of that “in the sweat of thy face” stuff applies yet. What would he need help with?

Well, there is ONE thing that he could use some help with. He frequently has one hard problem. Being a young, healthy guy, he wakes up in the morning with a major erection. He probably experiences it at other times during the day, too. And being painfully innocent, he doesn’t know what to do about it. He just has to suffer a bit until it deflates on its own and he can have a good piss.

So God sees that Adam needs a helper for the one and only problem that he has. God’s solution? Bring every [kind of] animal to Adam to see if any can “help” him with his “problem”! And Adam “named” them. Sure, that makes a better family-friendly tale. Shall we say he test-drove them? But apparently, none filled the bill. None of the gloves fit, so to speak (thank you, Adam!). Especially not the porcupine.

However, it seems that one came close. Adam even gave her an endearing name that is only one letter off from the name he eventually gave his human wife. Think about it.

But none was quite right, or satisfying enough. After all, he had to run and catch his first love whenever he felt the urge, and that kind of takes the starch out. So God got around to making an actual woman to “help” Adam with his one chronic “problem”.

Adam “named” the animals in the same sense that all those patriarchs “knew” their wives. It makes a better tale for the kiddies.

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' uncovered

MaskedQuoll said: Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' uncovered

Just Bob said: Adam “named” the animals in the same sense that all those patriarchs “knew” their wives. It makes a better tale for the kiddies.

This isn’t a Biblical interpretation site.

@Ed: Have you read Mere?