AIG: The Science of Adam & Eve

The creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia — really shocked us with the title of this article: Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve.

Their post mimics some of the format of a scientific paper, starting with this “Abstract,” some of which we’ll put in bold font for emphasis:

The advent of modern genetics has seen the evolutionary community redouble its efforts to argue for human-primate common ancestry and against the traditional Christian understanding of the origin of the human race. As has been argued in previous chapters [m’god — this thing is part of a book!], a careful reading of Genesis 1–11 indicates that God created Adam and Eve supernaturally and without prior ancestry, and that all of humanity traces their ancestry back to this original couple — and not to a group of primates or proto-humans. Combined with a careful reading of the rest of Scripture, this narrative places the creation date of Adam and Eve approximately 6,000 years ago and places another population bottleneck about 4,500 years ago at the time of the Flood. This scriptural framework leads to very specific expectations about the genetic differences among humans and other species, expectations that can be scientifically tested against modern genetic data. In this chapter, we contend that genetics confirms the recent, supernatural creation of Adam and Eve and refutes the evolutionary narrative on human origins.

Stunning, isn’t it? However, we’re not going to go through the whole mess and critique it as we go. For one thing, although it’s long, it’s just an introduction without substance. Our other reason is that … well, it isn’t entertaining. We’ll give you a few excerpts, and then you can play with the thing — if you can stand it. The authors (Nathaniel T. Jeanson and Jeffrey P. Tomkins) say:

Because the genetics of human origins is a scientifically complex issue that becomes technical very quickly, we have simplified this chapter by organizing it around four major questions:

1. From whom did humans originate: ape-like primates or fully human people?
2. How many individuals spawned the human race: a population or a pair?
3. When did humans originate: hundreds of thousands of years ago or about 6,000 years ago (i.e., ancient or recent)?
4. Where did modern human populations originate: Africa or Ararat?

Yes, those are the major questions. The rest of the post is just a long, rambling introduction to all the wonders that are likely to follow in future posts. We intend to skip them, but we had to post this — just to show you what creation science looks like. Now you know.

Copyright © 2017. 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

22 responses to “AIG: The Science of Adam & Eve

  1. Michael Fugate

    1. From whom did humans originate: ape-like primates or fully human people?

    Shouldn’t the alternative be “dust of the ground” and “God’s breath”?

  2. Wow! This is the first scientific confirmation of the existence of magic. Kudos to those brave “scientists” that have found this confirmation!

  3. Ross Cameron

    When you`re gripped by a delusion, there`s no limit to where your mind will take you.

  4. Do these genetic studies also confirm that neither Adam nor Eve had navels?

  5. Hmm, I have a fairly high percentage (around 5%) of Neanderthal DNA. How’d I get that from the mythical Adam and Eve, Hambone?

  6. Adam and Eve, young earth, and the global flood during historic times are old tribal myths, but you’ll never convince the TRVE believers of that because they misrepresent, obfuscate, or flat-out ignore any evidence that shows their beliefs to be wrong. Cognitive dissonance it is called.

    No amount of evidence will ever convince the TRVE believers.

  7. Charles Deetz ;)

    “proto-humans” … Drops mic.

  8. Holding The Line In Florida

    No! No! No! It can’t be possible that people in a supposedly advanced country can reallly believe this crap. If it wasn’t so funny I would just cry out in anguish at the state our country is in.

  9. On the other hand, there is this recent book by a couple of evangelical Christians arguing that genetics tells us that there was a bottleneck population of humans no less than about 10,000 individuals.
    Dennis R. Venema & Scot McKnight
    Adam and the Genome: reading scripture after genetic science
    Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2017

  10. Venema is one of my favourite expositors of evolution, and is a valuable ally against creationism, the more so for being himself committed evangelical Christian.

    Incidentally, we have here a beautiful example of how questions about history, including the four raised by AiG, can be and have been settled by standard methods of scientific observation and inference.

  11. The actual AiG article is a promissory note; a later part will reveal just why experimental tests favour the creationist over the standard scientific answers to the four questions raised.

    I can’t wait

  12. The article’s introduction says “Our intention is to demonstrate that the biblical creation model accounts, not just for a handful of select genetic observations, but for the entire body of genetic evidence available today.”

    And then they proceed to do nothing of the sort.

  13. It would be something for any one researcher to account for the entire body of genetic evidence, considering the number of Nobel prizes which have been awarded on that over the last century. That one could do that in secret must be the marvel of science. After all, no one has been able to state an alternative account which does not include descent with modification. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bible which mentions genetics. (Other than the trick that Jacob played on Laban in Genesis 30:25-43.)

  14. That story always troubled me when I was a believer; I knew it wouldn’t work but the text says it did

  15. Paul – ditto on your comment re Venema. I know Dennis and it should be noted that BioLogos-type academics walk a very thin line at their academic institutions, sometimes being dismissed for their acceptance of evolution.

  16. If evidence doesn’t comport with your belief, then obfuscate the evidence. The subsequent chapters should give geneticists many groans and howls. What I can’t figure out is if god separately created humans, why did it/she/he make them so ape-like? And, why leave so many fossils that indicate evolution?

  17. Wow, that’s sad. This university

    was founded by orthodox protestants and played a major role from say 1920 to 1970 in the debate about Da Controversy. The biologists never had to watch any thin line. As a result this atheist and outspoken opponent of creacrap could graduate in 1981 (economy):

    So it intrigues me how comes that the USA, which has a stricter separation of state and religion than The Netherlands, has the problems in its educational system with creacrap.

  18. @Scientist
    A creationist has a quick answer as to why God’s creatures are similar. They are all the creatures of the same God.
    The more difficult question is why some creatures are more like others, rather than they all being merely the same: why the pattern of similarities and differences is the “nested hierarchy” of the “tree of life”. So that the human body is most similar to chimps and other apes, among all the possibilities for body types. The human body occupies its place in taxonomy, as evidenced by comparative anatomy, by genetics, and paleontology.
    That pattern among the millions of species of life is highly complex. And it has been a predicting (“specified”) complexity: whenever we discover a new organism, we find it has its place in the tree of life; and whenever we find a new feature of life (as has been the case with DNA) it falls into the same pattern. Therefore, if we follow the argument about “complex specified design”, is it due to
    a) chance – are we satisfied with the answer that “that’s just the way it is” (such as an inexplicable “act of God”)
    b) nature – is there something in nature which explains it, like common decent with modification
    c) purpose – does the similarity point to similarity of purpose
    If we chose (c), then we are left with the reason that we are so similar to chimps and other apes is that God had a similar purpose for us. Are we to tell our kids that, in order to follow God’s purposes, we our to behave like apes?
    While if we chose (b), we can tell our kids that it’s just a matter of descent, with no significance. (Just as the fact that we are related to Torquemada does not mean that we should behave like him. Or because my great-uncle was a horse thief does not mean that I should be one.)

  19. Paul Schoeckel

    In this case, size matters. Netherlands has about the same population of Illinois, but half the sq miles of South Carolina. There isn’t enough space in the Netherlands for isolated communities much less a State the size of Texas to nearly isolated from the rest of the US. That’s why you don’t find large populations of Hamsters in NYC, LA or Chicago

  20. Just remember that you never seen Jeanson and Ham speaking at the same time, and you can’t even see Hambo’s lips move!

  21. Paul D: “And then they proceed to do nothing of the sort.”

    The length of the article far exceeded the attention span of the average creo-tard…. so they never get to the point where they realize that.

  22. Good point, PaulS – the victory of Evolution Theory at the Vrije Universiteit was made in 1970, which probably is correlated to the end of pillarization.

    And exactly pillarization was meant to isolate populations.

Make a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s