August 2024 : Proslogion

Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views

In my opinion, one of the best ways to think deeply about an issue is to read about it from different points of view. Generally, I have to do that by reading many books by different authors on the same topic. In that situation, however, I don’t get to experience any interaction between the authors. That’s what makes a book like Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views so valuable.

In this book, you have four “heavy hitters” in Modern Christianity, each weighing in with his view on the historical Adam. Dr. Kenton Sparks attempts to persuade the reader that the Genesis narrative is not intended to be taken as history, so Adam and Eve did not exist as progenitors of the human race. Instead, the process of evolution produced the human race the way God intended it to. In his mind, this doesn’t take away from the spiritual importance of the story, nor does it affect any of the important issues in Christian Theology. This is often called the “non-historical view of Adam.”

On the other end of the spectrum, Dr. Marcus Ross argues that the Genesis account is a historical narrative, that Adam and Eve really did exist (only thousands of years ago), and they gave rise to the human race. This is often called the “young-earth creationist” (YEC) view.

In between these two ends of the spectrum are Dr. Andrew Loke and Dr. William Lane Craig. Like Dr. Sparks, they both believe that evolution produced the physical form of human beings, but those physical forms were not human, because they did not have God’s image. God chose two of those non-humans-with-human-form, gave them his image, and named them Adam and Eve. Thus, Adam and Eve were real people who God miraculously turned from “animals” into human beings.

The difference between these two scholars is how Adam and Eve produced the human race. Dr. Loke champions the view put forth by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, that Adam and Eve existed along with the non-humans-with-human-form. Adam and Eve interbred with them, and all members of the modern human race can be traced genealogically back to Adam and Eve, because all non-humans-with-human-form that had no trace of Adam and Eve’s genes ended up going extinct. This is often called the “genealogical Adam” view.

Dr. Craig, on the other hand, thinks that if you go far enough back into the geological record (perhaps 750,000 years ago), you can find the physical form of human beings. When God gave two of them His image, they became fundamentally different from the entities that evolution produced. Thus, they did not interbreed with any non-humans. I wrote about his view after reading his book. This is often called the “mytho-historical Adam” view, because he believes that the Genesis account is a myth that is built around truly historical individuals.

Why do these views exist? Because mainstream genetics claims (I think incorrectly) that it is impossible for the human race’s genetic diversity to be explained in terms of one man and one woman who gave rise to the human race a few thousand years ago. Sparks, Loke, and Craig attempt to interpret Scripture in that light. Ross does not, because he doesn’t think the mainstream view of human genetics is correct on that point.

The book starts with an introduction, and then it is followed with each scholar giving his view. The other scholars’ objections to that view are then given, and then the original scholar offers his rejoinder to the critics. This is incredibly helpful, because it is easier to see the strengths and weaknesses in each of the main essays.

For example, Sparks’s essay states that the best Mesopotamian and Egyptian scholars in the ancient world thought the earth was covered by a solid dome. However, as Craig points out, this is “not merely unjustified but demonstrably false,” and he gives a reference that allows the reader to see why. This is important, because that demonstrably false idea leads some to incorrectly claim that Jewish theologians in the ancient world believed the same thing. In Craig’s essay, he claims that YECs must assume plate tectonics separated the continents after the Flood to explain the distribution of organisms on the planet. In Ross’s objection, he writes, “I have never once encountered a creation geologist who holds this view…” and gives a reference to show that YECs believe plate tectonics separated the continents during the Flood.

To my sincere delight, there was no rancor in the book. Each scholar shows respect to the others and finds some way to praise the others despite their different views. This was both edifying and encouraging. In the end, I thought Dr. Ross’s case was the strongest, but then again, it’s most similar to my view. Nevertheless, reading this book allows a person to see why intelligent, sincere Christians can hold different views on this vitally-important subject.

I will end with a passage from the Afterword, which appears after all the essays and arguments. It is written by Dr. Swamidass, who originated the view championed by Loke. He noted that at a dinner which followed the colloquium in which all these views were debated, Ross was accompanied by several who supported his view. He and his supporters invited Sparks (the one they had the most disagreement with) to join them at their table. The result was a lively conversation that was nevertheless full of love and affection. As Swamidass says:

I left young-earth creationism many years ago. Still, I cannot help but wish that Marcus’s tribe will grow. This type of creationism is far greater than fundamentalism. And if this is what YEC becomes, we would all be better for it.

I could not agree more. As a YEC, I can say that I am saddened by many of my fellow YECs who use insults and invectives to ward off the “heretics.” I have always seen Dr. Ross as someone set apart from that, and I think the YEC movement is better for it. I am encouraged that others are learning to follow his example.

My Review of Exploring Creation With Physical Science, 4th Edition

I wrote the first two editions of Exploring Creation With Physical Science, but the publisher used a different author (Vicki Dincher) to make changes for a third edition. As I noted on this blog, there were many serious scientific errors in that third edition, and the discussion of some topics was very confusing. I assume a lot of people agreed with that assessment, because after only four years, the author significantly revamped the course to produce the fourth edition.

When I heard that the fourth edition was coming out, I hoped that the author had corrected the serious scientific errors that I pointed out in my full review of the third edition. Fortunately, some of them were. For example, the author no longer states that we measure heat with degrees Celsius. That’s good, since heat is a form of energy. Thus, it needs to be measured with an energy unit, not a temperature unit.

However, the author still doesn’t define temperature properly. In the third edition, she said it was a measure of the heat energy in a substance, which is wrong. In this edition, she leaves out “heat” and says it is a measure of the energy in a substance. That’s better, but still not correct. The proper definition of temperature states it is a measure of the energy of random motion in the molecules of a substance. This is important, because a ball sitting on the floor has less energy than a ball sitting on a desk, but if they have been in the same room for a long time, both balls have the same temperature. Thus, temperature is not a measure of the energy in an object.

While some of the major errors have been fixed, many of them have not. For example, the author still incorrectly informs the students that the works of the Greek philosophers were lost when the West Latinized, and they weren’t “rediscovered” until the Renaissance. That is blatantly false. Greek classics became influential once again beginning in about the 10th century, and they were debated vigorously throughout the rest of the Middle Ages. Similarly, both editions still misinform the students about acceleration. The author says negative acceleration means an object is slowing down. That is simply not true. Since acceleration and velocity are both vectors, they can be either positive or negative depending on direction. If the velocity’s direction makes it negative, then a negative acceleration indicates that the object is speeding up!

Other issues are partly fixed. For example, in the third edition, the author refers to all metric units as SI units. They are not. There is only one SI unit for each measured quantity. For example, while you can use many metric units to measure mass (grams, milligrams, micrograms, etc.), there is only one SI unit: kilograms. She has mostly fixed this, but not completely. On page 19, she says, “If you wanted to measure the length of something small, the only unit you could use in the English system would be the inch. However, if you used SI units, you would have all sorts of options for which unit to use.” That’s false. There is only one SI unit for length: the meter. Thus, that would be your only choice in SI units.

So if the author didn’t fix all the errors in the third edition, what is the point of having a fourth edition? I am not sure. The biggest difference between the editions is that the fourth edition has many sections called “advanced concepts.” They are set apart from the rest of the chapter, and the introduction to the book says that students are encouraged to read through the advanced concepts, but unless the students are on the “advanced track” they don’t need to worry about answering questions about those concepts on the study guides and tests.

While I don’t have a problem with that in principle, most of these “advanced concepts” are not advanced at all. They belong in a standard physical science course. For example, in this edition, the definition of a scientific model is an advanced concept. Additional “advanced concepts” are the distinction between heterogeneous and homogeneous solutions, the definitions of sublimation and deposition, the description of isotopes, how to deal with squares in mathematical equations, the difference between charging by condition and induction, and how series circuits are different from parallel circuits. As near as I can tell, the author went through topics that weren’t explained very well and simply made them “advanced concepts” that the students could skip. In my view, this is simply dumbing down the course.

Before I received this new edition, I was hoping that the author had fixed the many problems of the previous edition so that I could recommend it. Unfortunately, I cannot. If you are forced to use this course because of a co-op that you are in, please encourage your student to thoroughly cover everything, even the “advanced concepts.” It will be difficult, since they aren’t explained well, but if the student doesn’t do this, I would say that the level of the course is, at best, seventh grade.

The High Priests of Science Are Counting on the Public’s Short Memory

A protest in 2013, which highlighted how climate change was supposedly destroying the polar bear population (click image for credit)

Will Rogers once said, “The short memories of the American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.” The High Priests of Science are well aware of the public’s short memory. In fact, they count on it. Consider, for example, the picture above. It was a common sight 10-15 years ago. The credulous costumed characters in the picture were terribly worried about the plight of polar bears, which they believed were being driven to extinction because climate change (aka global warming) was melting all the ice in the Arctic. Without that ice, the polar bears would have no habitat, and they would all die.

Why don’t we see lots of protests featuring polar bears anymore? Because even the High Priests of Science can no longer deny the fact that polar bears are thriving. Studies show that polar bear populations have more than doubled since 1960. It turns out that polar bears were on the decline because of hunting, not climate change. Now that the hunting of polar bears has been heavily regulated, the animals are once again healthy and plentiful. The High Priests of Science are counting on you to forget their false statements regarding polar bears and climate change/global warming so that they can continue to promote their propaganda.

Now remember, the polar bears were supposedly threatened by the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. The High Priests of Science have continually predicted that the Arctic would eventually be ice free in the summer. In 2008, for example, Dr. James Hansen told the U.S. Congress that in 5-10 years, the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer. Well, it has been 16 years since his testimony, and there is still a lot of ice in the Arctic, even in the summer. Other scientists have predicted ice-free Arctic summers by 2015, 2013, and 2012. The High Priests hope you have forgotten those predictions now that they claim it will happen by 2030, or perhaps 2067.

Of course, those aren’t the only things the High Priests are hoping you’ve forgotten. The Great Barrier Reef is another. In 2012, a study predicted that if we did not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, the central and southern regions of the Great Barrier Reef would see such a decline that only 5-10% would be covered with coral. Two years later, The Guardian published an obituary for the reef. Ten years later, however, the amount of coral in the northern and central regions of the Great Barrier Reef is at an all-time high, and the southern region is very close to an all-time high. Once again, the High Priests of Science hope you will forget about those predictions.

And then, of course, there is sea level. Sea levels have been rising steadily since the mid 1800s, because that is when the earth started recovering from The Little Ice Age, a time when the earth was unusually cold. Despite the fact that at least a large portion of the rise in sea levels seems to be a result of natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, the High Priests of Science have predicted that climate change will accelerate it, leading to all sorts of catastrophes. The East Coast’s beaches were supposed to be gone by 2020, the Maldives were supposed to be underwater by 2018, and New York and Washington were supposed to be covered by the ocean in the year 2000. Of course, none of that happened, but the High Priests are counting on you to forget those predictions so they can make new ones.

The next time you hear a dire prediction about what will happen because of climate change/global warming, remember that those High Priests of Science have been making such predictions for a very long time, and they are constantly being proven wrong.

A Schedule for Using Discovering Design With Chemistry in Classical Conversations

As some of you may be aware, I am not a fan of the third edition of Exploring Creation With Chemistry (ECC). Others have also taken a dim view of ECC (see here, here, and here). Because I couldn’t recommend ECC to homeschoolers, I wrote a new chemistry course, whose front cover is pictured on the left.

Not everyone seems to agree with my view of ECC, since there are some homeschooling organizations that still use it. One of those organizations is Classical Conversations (CC). Over the years, I have had many CC mothers tell me that while the CC classes use ECC, they are using Discovering Design With Chemistry at home so that their students can learn chemistry more completely. However, it can be difficult, because the two books cover topics in a different order. Therefore, I have come up with a guide that allows you to synchronize my chemistry course to the CC schedule.

If you would like to use my chemistry course and be synchronized to the CC schedule, click here.