Various apologetic arguments claim that the scientific estimate of the minimum human population is some value such as 2,000, which is not supported by the actual scientific literature; in this post we'll look at where some of those numbers seem to be coming from.
When the gods are shaken from the sky,
there's a scientific reason why.
There's no wish to replace them
and no-one's rushing in to win
the race to fill the empty space
— All About Eve, "Outshine The Sun"
Sunday, 18 September 2016
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Misunderstanding and Misrepresenting Mitochondrial Eve
Every time there's a discussion of Adam and Eve, someone who doesn't understand the biology will inevitably bring up ‘Mitochondrial Eve’ (or sometimes ‘Y-chromosomal Adam’) as though this is somehow relevant to the Biblical fictional characters.
The latest example over at SN is LHRMSCBrown, who links to this piece by William Lane Craig:
It has been shown by geneticists that all living human beings on the face of the earth today, based on their mitochondria in our cells, are descended from the same woman. There is literally a mother somewhere in the distant past of the entire human race. Scientists have called her the Mitochondrial Eve. They don’t think that this is the Eve of the Old Testament because they would say this woman was just one of probably thousands of women who existed at that time but remarkably if there were all these other thousands of women their descendants have all died off somehow in the course of history and everybody that exists today is a descendant of this woman who actually lived at some time in the prehistoric past.
Craig can rarely be accused of getting the science correct, and this is no exception.
Wednesday, 20 May 2015
Estranged Notions: The Appropriate Reaction to a Physical Theory of Life
Today's post:
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
Estranged Notions: Knowing an Ape from Adam
More from Feser:
This part (1 of 2) is pretty vacuous; just skips over the awkward parts by asserting (via a broken link) that the immateriality of intellect is already “shown”, and then recites various dogmatic statements from popes and theologians. Nothing resembling either evidence or argument.
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Estranged Notions: Does Evolution Contradict Genesis?
Today's post:
Does Evolution Contradict Genesis?
Very superficial, little more than a criticism of six-day creation interpretations of Genesis.
Friday, 31 October 2014
Estranged Notions: What the Media Got Wrong about Pope Francis and Evolution
Inaccurate reporting in mainstream media shocker:
What the Media Got Wrong about Pope Francis and Evolution
Of course this all misses the point of what the real incompatibilities between evolution and Catholicism are: no teleology in nature, no Adam and Eve, no immutable human nature, "soul" as the Aristotelian form of the evolved human is not compatible with the "soul" which is individually specially created by God.
Monday, 13 October 2014
Estranged Notions: God, Professors, and Evolutionary Biology Classes
Today's post:
Monday, 4 August 2014
Estranged Notions: Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament
Today's post:
Richard Dawkins and the God of the Old Testament
As usual, the elephant in the room goes unremarked: the Old Testament (specifically the parts under discussion here) is not factual history but propaganda. Evolution may be harsh and amoral, but it really happened; we are the result of hundreds of millions of years of tooth-and-claw survival. But rather than deify evolution and worship its values, we have the option—some would say the only right option on meeting a god—of killing it and taking its powers for our own use.
The Old Testament God has no such excuse. The stories of genocides were almost certainly not told because they actually happened, but rather because the compilers of the OT regarded these genocidal commands as being consistent with the kind of god that they wanted; they embraced the idea of slaughter rather than rejecting it. (Archaeology gives us a history of the Levant which is completely at odds with the OT stories until sometime after the time of Solomon; we obviously can't prove that something didn't happen, but we can establish that the context of the genocide stories does not fit with the historical context of any plausible time at which they could have occurred.)
So what path to choose? Worship of a God whose supposedly inspired literature contains fictional atrocities, or look at the cold facts of evolution and say, “yes, this is where we came from, and we need to understand the legacy it has left us; but it no longer dictates our future”?
Friday, 14 February 2014
Rosenhouse on Plait on Ham/Nye
Jason Rosenhouse (author of Among The Creationists, which I highly recommend), responded to Phil Plait's response to the Ham/Nye debate:
It’s Not Just Fundamentalist Religion That Has A Problem With Evolution
Rosenhouse's viewpoint is that evolution really is incompatible with many religious positions—not just the crazy Genesis-1-literalist ones espoused by Ham and the YECs, but much more. Key paragraphs:
So, after all, that, let us return to Plait’s argument. He tells us that the problem is too many people perceiving evolution as a threat to their religious beliefs. Indeed, but why do they perceive it that way? Is it a failure of messaging on the part of scientists? Is it because Richard Dawkins or P. Z. Myers make snide remarks about religion? No, those are not the reasons.
It is because these people have noticed all the same problems the scholars of Darwin’s time were writing about. It is because evolution really does conflict with their religious beliefs, but not because of an overly idiosyncratic interpretation of one part of the Bible. It is because the version of evolution that so worried the religious scholars of Darwin’s time, that of a savage, non-teleological process that produced humanity only as an afterthought, is precisely the version that has triumphed among modern scientists. And it is because the objections raised to that version of evolution in the nineteenth century have not lost any of their force today.
So I think the issue is just a tad more complex than Plait suggests. It manifestly is not the case that only the most narrow of fundamentalists has a problem with evolution. Evolution challenges the Bible, refutes the argument from design, exacerbates the problem of evil, and strongly challenges any notion that humanity plays a central role in creation. These are not small points, and Plait needs to acknowledge them.
(Do read the whole thing; quite a bit of it is Catholic-related)
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Estranged Notions: Bill Nye, Ken Ham, and the Catholic Third Way
Today's article: