Georgia Purdom Proves Adam & Eve

We haven’t seen anything this funny in a long time. It’s found at the Christian Post website, which describes itself as “the nation’s most comprehensive Christian news website.” Their article is Molecular Geneticist Attempts to Prove All Humans Descended From ‘Original Human Couple’ Adam and Eve in New Documentary.

We’ll only give you a few excerpts. Each one is like the punch line to a joke. The bold font was added by us:

A well-respected molecular geneticist who works for Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis is featured in a new documentary where she attempts to confirm, through recent scientific discoveries, that all humans descended from the biblical Adam and Eve.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The juxtaposition of “well-respected” and Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — is absolutely spectacular. But that was only the beginning:

This documentary, titled “The Genetics of Adam and Eve,” displays the validity of the creation story by examining the genetics of all people. Its creator, Dr. Georgia Purdom, a geneticist who has published papers in various scientific journals including the Journal of Neuroscience, recently spoke to Christian News Network about the project.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! The genetics of “all people” have been examined. The genius behind this work is Dr. Georgia Purdom. She’s one of ol’ Hambo’s creation scientists, about whom we recently wrote The Galapagos Islands Prove Creationism.

They quote sweet Georgia who cites “creation geneticist, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson.” Georgia claims he “clearly shows” that Mitochondrial Eve “lived within the biblical timeframe of several thousand years ago,” and not at least 100,000 years ago, as evolutionists insist.

Then she talks about whether humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. She says:

[G]enetics clearly show that humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor. There are many, many differences in their DNA that completely undermine the possibility of shared ancestry only a few million years ago.

Sweet Georgia doesn’t mention the genetic differences exhibited by the millions of species on Earth today, which allegedly descended from the few creatures aboard the Ark during Noah’s flood, around 4,000 years ago. Why is that omitted? Who knows?

We’re going to skip a lot, all of which is amusing, until we get to the very end. This may be the best line of all:

The documentary won’t be broadcast on television or online, but is available for purchse [sic] on the Answers in Genesis website.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! This revolutionary work won’t be published in any peer-reviewed journal. You’ll have to buy it from AIG. Verily, this is creation science at its best.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

28 responses to “Georgia Purdom Proves Adam & Eve

  1. Hello? If we are all descended from two such people and the world is only 6000 years old, shouldn’t there be more of a family resemblance?

    These people are amazing. While they are arguing Adam and Eve, they ignore the 6000 year age of earth. When they are explaining the 6000 year old earth, they ignore the genetic diversity of species (and a great deal more). They are raising the cherry-picking of data to ever higher levels.

  2. I aint descended from no monkey!!!!
    I’m from the incestuous relationship with the sons and the wife of Adam.
    Cuz the buyBull does not mention any girl kids!!!

  3. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters Genesis 5:4

  4. Dr. Georgia Purdom should have her PH.D in genetics revoked!! Any one who twists the genetic data to fit her creationist view should not be able to call herself a professional. And if she is so dumb as to not understand the data, she does not deserve the PH.D. anyway. How did she ever pass her prelims and defend a thesis with this mindset??

  5. michaelfugate

    Who knows what motivates someone like Georgia to go to graduate school – she probably has always been a Christian, went to a Christian undergrad (Cedarville), and graduate school had no impact on her outlook.

    If any one is interested, here is the title to her dissertation from Ohio State:
    The Role of the Microphthalmia Transcription Factor (MITF) in the regulation of Gene Expression during Osteoclast Differentiation

    And a little bit at the end of her acknowledgements:
    I thank the congregation of the First Church of the Nazarene, Columbus and the Westside Cell Group for their support, love, and prayers.
    Iwould like to express my great appreciation to my husband, Chris, whose support, encouragement, sense of humor, and love sustained me through the whole of my graduate school experience. Most of all I wish to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ without whom I would not be here today.

  6. My dear SC, may I nominate our well respected Dr. GP for the Buffoon Award?

  7. @Steve Ruis
    Hello? If we are all descended from two such people and the world is only 6000 years old, shouldn’t there be more of a family resemblance?

    Neither does it explain Caucasian, Asian, African, etc. rather distinguishing features. Lost tribe excuses don’t cut it.

  8. May I second mnbo’s nomination of sweet Georgia?

  9. mnb0 says: “may I nominate our well respected Dr. GP for the Buffoon Award?”

    The award is reserved for people or publications that have achieved some prominence. No one knows who sweet Georgia is, and no one ever will know. So she doesn’t qualify.

  10. Charles Deetz ;)

    Looking at the webpage and preview of the video, this is NOT a groundbreaking genetic and historical exposition, but typical AIG refutation of existing science to laymen and clergy. At least Lisle you can see cracking, Purdom has her jaw squared for a battle to protect her beliefs.

  11. waldteufel

    One can almost see the strings going up from her hands and mouth into the hands of her puppeteer ol’ Hambo.

  12. One of many reasons why Georgia Purdom, Ken Ham, & Co. will go predictably ballistic when the Templeton funded project at Trinity starts publishing papers will be because some of those academic papers will spawn layperson-oriented explanations which remind Bible readers that the Book of Genesis speaks of other “tribes” contemporary with the Adamic lineage. For example, Cain basically went into exile and found a wife there and built a city (which requires people, not just his own brood of 21+ kids and counting.) Also, the Nephilim, “Sons of God”, and “daughters of men” are mentioned as sobering realities and brought problems with intermarriage. And, obviously, the Bible doesn’t claim that HAADAM (the red-soiled human one, “Adam”) was the first Homo sapien nor various other explicit anachronisms. It emphasizes that Adam was the first “Image of God” endowed creature—-whether viewed metaphorically in an Aesop’s fable sort of teaching story or as a particular individual who produced a lineage which led to Abraham—-and that Imago Dei concept has for centuries of theology generally been considered a spiritual concept or set of capabilities rather than a mere anatomical similarity with the Creator.

    The fact that Christians dispute such details of the Biblical text is one of the reasons why the Trinity project will be emphasizing them: to point out that what Answers in Genesis et al claim is a popular tradition among American Christians but not at all indisputably clear in the Hebrew text. Thus, the project will hopefully weaken the grip of YECism as more people realize that doubting Ken Ham’s propaganda won’t make them a heretic.

    The purpose of the Templeton funded project will not be about issuing edicts telling Christians what they must believe about origins (or even YECism and IDism per se.) Instead, they will focus on the theological implications of coming to terms with the fact that—to put it much more bluntly than their published papers will—Bible-affirming Christians don’t have to fall for Ken Ham’s false dichotomy of: “You either accept the Bible as I’ve interpreted it for you *OR* your reject God’s authority and side with science. You must choose whether to listen to the infallible declarations of God or the fallible rubbish of atheist, naturalistic scientists.”

    After all, most people who follow Ken Ham don’t do so because they were first and foremost won over by his scientific acumen. No, they see him as a believes-as-they-do Christian reassuring voice confirming the traditions they grew up with or learned from others who did. His “creation science” is just a soothing bonus so that they can tell the kids or doubters among them: “…and all of this fully support the real scientific evidence!” And that is why few Young Earth Creationist are won over by scientific evidence alone. They require someone “safe” (i.e., safely orthodox as Christians who believe like they do) to tell them that they don’t have to stick with the tradition they learned.

    Most people much or even most of the time make choices based on conformity with the tribe. Obviously, this is not unique to “religious people.” It is a survival strategy product of our evolution. (Unlike some of the more solitary species, Homo sapiens sapiens has best thrived where generally being a cooperative “team player” with the tribe has been the norm.)

    What the Trinity project will try to do is systematically demonstrate to them from the Biblical text and centuries of Christian history and tradition that just as scientific discoveries of the past (e.g. heliocentric planetary motion) were soon understood as compatible with the relevant Biblical texts, so can our new knowledge of the human genome and its history be comfortably acknowledged if we open our eyes to other, perhaps less noticed, Biblical texts. Indeed, Ken Ham has a seed of truth in his argument “To interpret the evidence, we must put on our Biblical glasses”, except for the fact that he is actually talking about a “tradition-based” pair of glasses. Accordingly, they notice the scriptures which, at least on the surface, appear to confirm their cherished traditions while ignoring those other statements in Genesis which don’t fit so well.

    For example, they don’t notice the many statements in Genesis 1 and 2 which clearly describe life from non-living ingredients: abiogenesis. Also, they assume “Let there be light!” was the first act of creation—even though the previous verse speaks of “the face of the waters” already existing. Of course, Cecil B. DeMille helped traditionalists focus on the “Let there be light!” aspect of the text because the movie gave them a memorable mental picture and soundbite.

    Will some of the published papers speak approvingly of ID? Probably. (Such is the cost of tact and diplomacy. Nothing is learned if the listener covers his ears after being offended.) Sorting through the science is not their main purpose and others have already done that. They will try to address the actual obstacles to people reconsidering their Young Earth Creationist beliefs. I’ve been pleased to see a number of scientists and bloggers recognizing this fact. If Ken Ham, Georgia Purdom, and similar threats to science education and understanding in this country are to be deprived of their destructive influences, it will be at the hand (or pen) of theologians. The scientists have already done their part in that task.

    Ken Ham & Co. will be watching the Trinity project very closely and the Adam and Eve video no doubt seeks to plant their flag more firmly on the territory of what they deem “appropriate beliefs for good Christians like us”. We can expect more and more emphasis on such topics as they worry about the threat posed to their hegemony. They realize that Biologos has posed few dangers to most of their constituencies because its “theology” has been disorganized and all across the board. But they understand very well that the three year Trinity project will influence many pastors and could very well dominate the next generation of evangelical seminarians who will also be better informed about the science behind The Theory of Evolution. Of course, hard-core fundamentalists attending KJV-only, unaccredited institutions will barely be aware of what “those liberals” at Trinity are doing. But Ham knows that his evangelical constituency is very much under threat.

    Anyone whose primary agenda is silencing Bible inerrantists or putting Sam Harris on the five-dollar bill—or even driving Intelligent Design advocacy off the face of the earth by 2018—will not be impressed by the Trinity project. But anyone who cares about the future of science education in this country and an academic process which will eventually reach and persuade average Americans so as to throttle the cash flow which propels propaganda mills like AIG and The Discovery Institute, then the Templeton funded project is most likely a good horse to bet on.

  13. michaelfugate

    Prof T, have you seen the proposal? If so, do you know where it can be viewed?

  14. Dave Luckett

    Gasp! Horror! Dr Purdom has fallen away from the TRVTH of the Revealed Word of GOD!!! Pray for her lost soul! Oh, woe! Woe!

    We are NOT all descended from Adam and Eve alone, as Holy Scripture reveals to us, at Genesis 6:4. Georgia Purdom is in heresy and contumacious denial of the Scriptures. I say unto her, repent! Down on your knees, oh sinner, and pray the forgiveness of Almighty God, lest He damn and blast your soul to the lake of eternal fire and thus prove how much He loves you!

    (Twitches, foams, falls down, spasms, babbles inarticulately and carries on a treat.)

    (Good lord, this isn’t so hard to do. Maybe I have another career before me… It has been revealed to me, brothers and sisters…)

  15. Ah yes, Preacher Luckett, you have the gift! You could make a fortune producing a line of CDs and selling them online, like Cutie Pie Rev. Davey.

  16. Biokid asks, “How did she ever pass her prelims and defend a thesis with this mindset??

    Prevarication. She knew the right words to say, and kept her true views hidden.

  17. Bible-affirming Christians don’t have to fall for Ken Ham’s false dichotomy of: “You either accept the Bible as I’ve interpreted it for you *OR* your reject God’s authority and side with science. You must choose whether to listen to the infallible declarations of God or the fallible rubbish of atheist, naturalistic scientists.”

    After all, most people who follow Ken Ham don’t do so because they were first and foremost won over by his scientific acumen. No, they see him as a believes-as-they-do Christian reassuring voice confirming the traditions they grew up with or learned from others who did. His “creation science” is just a soothing bonus so that they can tell the kids or doubters among them: “…and all of this fully support the real scientific evidence!” And that is why few Young Earth Creationist are won over by scientific evidence alone. They require someone “safe” (i.e., safely orthodox as Christians who believe like they do) to tell them that they don’t have to stick with the tradition they learned.

    Few young-Earth creationists can be, or need to be, “won over” by scientific evidence at all. They know what they believe from the start.

    Personally, I’d love to see creationists explain how, if we’re all descended from seven people just a few thousand years ago (after Noah’s flood), let alone just two 6,000 years ago, the human race isn’t long dead due to inbreeding. And claims that humans were genetically perfect until after the Flood won’t cut it, since there is no explanation for how they could have stayed that way for so long and then, suddenly, begun to deteriorate

  18. There is resemblance in our DNA .. that is why any who has gotten DNA testing and finds they have everything upto and including African American decent. Shows resemblance and a common beginning ancestors. And God is a creator . He creates.. many things in many different ways.. like snowflakes🙂 all of his creations are completely different which shoes not just a beginning creator but a continuous creator!! Meaning he’s alive! All the signs are there if ya just look. Thank you Jesus! Bless these words to be read far and wide and get people looking for you.. in Jesus name Amen..

  19. I am not saying that Dr.Ours on has not manipulated data as is claimed here, I have not heard enough to make a decision.
    But all I have read from this article is mockery rather than an objective analysis of the data. Perhaps you should take your own advice and focus on data instead of arrogant mockery.

  20. Techreseller

    Ummm, I think the Bible itself contradicts Dear Dr. Purdom. How would they trace to Adam and Eve with the Noah chokepoint? All you could really see would be descendants of Noah. The descendants would all show Noah and/or his son’s. Or are my genetics messed up here?

  21. Purdom says that there is no genetic evidence of human and chimps having a common ancestor?
    blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/07/19/the-mystery-of-the-missing-chromosome-with-a-special-guest-appearance-from-facebook-creationists
    Quote:
    They were able to do so thanks to the publication earlier this year of the gorilla genome. A comparison of the human, chimpanzee, and gorilla genomes confirms that the ancestors of gorillas branched off from the ancestors of chimpanzees and humans about ten million years ago. Humans and chimpanzees then branched apart later. A comparison between all three species provides a clearer picture of what our chromosomes looked like before they fused, and how they’ve changed since.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/03/11/a-tiny-bit-of-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing/
    We can measure the average genetic distance between the species (the percentages at the bottom of the figure), but we can still see individual genes (the gray line) that branched at different points in their history. This is simply not a problem for evolutionary theory; once again, the creationists rely on their proponents having a foolishly cartoonish version of evolution in their heads in order to raise a false objection.

  22. Bible & Science Forum: Professor Tertius, got a URL for the Trinity project?

  23. RBH asks: “Professor Tertius, got a URL for the Trinity project?”

    Professor Tertius probably has better sources, but the discussion started here with this post: Templeton Foundation Funds Creationism Studies.

  24. michaelfugate

    I couldn’t find a link to the grant on list of grants at the Templeton web site. I would be interested in reading the proposal and how it differs from Biologos, for instance, more theology and less biology?

  25. I’m planning to talk to one of the people at Trinity who wrote the prospectus to see if it is going to be made public. (If not, I may ask for the main outline because I want to see just how much influence the IDers are going to have. Of course, under the right circumstances it may be desirable to include them because they could force them to avoid false dichotomies as well.) But I assume the project won’t try to make decisions on real science vs. not science. It is about distinguishing opposition to science that is simply cherished tradition rather than an actual conflict with the Bible.

    But I would think that this is the key purpose:

    “This generous grant makes it possible for evangelical theological scholarship to explore crucial hermeneutical, exegetical, historical, systematic, and pastoral elements of the doctrine of creation, especially as these relate to important developments in scientific inquiry,” McCall said.

    This is mainly about helping evangelicals to realize that the “creation science” YEC dogma does not have to put a strangle hold on their people via false dichotomies.
    ___________________________

    When the Templeton grant was last discussed, someone insisted that William Dembski had been on the faculty at Trinity—which I found difficult to believe. They do bring in visiting faculty each year, something most top grad schools do. But I just can’t imagine why there would bring in Dembski. (And I tried to find any evidence of that online and found nothing.)

    By the way, I assume readers understand that when some academic society meets on the campus, they have all sorts of speakers for the event. But that doesn’t mean somebody “taught at Trinity.”

  26. and how it differs from Biologos, for instance, more theology and less biology?

    Main different from Biologos: (1) It will be far more systematic. As a 3-year project, it will lead up to actual “conclusions” where a strong body of scholarship will map out what “accommodations” of the science can justify modifying long held tradition or dogma. (2) There will be a lot of “soothing of fears”, setting the stage for Hamites to calm down and realize that they don’t have to stay Hamites as the only “right” way to be a Christian. Accordingly, (3) there should be plenty of published papers and then books coming out of the grant which AIG will denounce as “compromising Christians” and “making a choice between man’s authority and God’s authority [which means AIG authority.]

    By the way, I heard William Lane Craig interview Stephen Meyer the other day and talking about how the Dover Decision really “took the wind out of ID’s sales.” It was hilarious to hear Meyer pretend that [my paraphrase]: “We really weren’t all that happy with what the school board at Dover did and yet we found ourselves pulled into it and paying the price ever since even though it wasn’t our fault.”

    He pretended that the school board got hammered for trying to force things on students “but real Intelligent Design science wasn’t really dealt with at Dover. That’s not what it was about.” So he apparently pretends that the statement read to the students in biology classes was the trial purpose—and that he is against that sort of forcefulness with creationism in the classroom. (LOL)

  27. The whole truth

    “But I would think that this is the key purpose:

    “This generous grant makes it possible for evangelical theological scholarship to explore crucial hermeneutical, exegetical, historical, systematic, and pastoral elements of the doctrine of creation, especially as these relate to important developments in scientific inquiry,” McCall said.

    This is mainly about helping evangelicals to realize that the “creation science” YEC dogma does not have to put a strangle hold on their people via false dichotomies.”

    I just can’t let that go. What. A. Pile. Of. Crap.

    That grant and project is a massive waste of money, time, and effort on delusional, horrible, impossible religious gibberish in a useless attempt by religious lunatics to convince other religious lunatics that they can make a few changes in their religious gibberish beliefs and still be heaven-worthy godbots.

    “evangelical theological scholarship”

    There’s NO such thing.

    “to explore crucial hermeneutical, exegetical, historical, systematic, and pastoral elements of the doctrine of creation, especially as these relate to important developments in scientific inquiry”

    Totally self-serving, self-righteous religiobabble dressed up in important sounding jargon. Crucial? To what? For what? Diagnoses of delusional disorders, paranoia, and/or narcissism? The so-called “doctrine of creation” (Which version/interpretation?), is just impossible fairy tales, and THAT’s what people should be told.