Bald Ape
February 25th 2003, 02:56 PM
Many creationists here seem to object to the use of methodological naturalism to answer the question of human origins. However, it is my impression that many such people allow the nature of the evidence available to MN (e.g. the rarity of well-preserved fossils of our ancestors) to interfere with their decision on whether to rely on MN.
Thus, I present the following (admittedly far-fetched) hypothetical to put the issue in the limelight:
Assume you and a chimpanzee are in the same room. A crack team of archeologists, geologists, geneticists, and scientists of other disciplines have joined you as well. The geneticists examine the DNA from a strand of your hair, and write the entire genome into a computer. Same with the chimp. The team of scientists go into the world, and track down your father and the male parent of the chimp, bringing back DNA samples. Genomes are extracted, and fatherhood is proven beyond a doubt. Samples of DNA from your father's father and chimp's father's father are obtained, genomes extracted, and "grandfatherhood" is proven beyond reasonable doubt for both yourself and the chimpanzee.
The crack team of archeologists and geologists are able to go out into the world, and find remains of your (and the chimp's) great grand fathers, great-great-gf's, etc. For each set of remains, DNA is extracted, and fatherhood of the previous generation is proven. Ultimately, 300,000 ancestors are examined using this process, with no question of direct lineage. However, the 140,000 fossil examined in your lineage, compared to the 160,000 in the chimps, are shown unequivicably to have been brothers. The 300,001th ancestor, likewise, is shown to be the father of those two brothers - you and the monkey, in any court of in the US, would be declared 140,000th cousins, 20,000 removed.
--- end hypothetical
So, given the hypothetical described above, I'm curious what camps creationists would find themselves in...
1) Deny, deny, deny - ignore the ironclad nature of the DNA-evidence, insist it *MUST* be false (or, perhaps, faked), even with an utter lack of grounds for questioning it's validity beyond the conlusions to which it leads.
2) See the evidence as a "test" of faith - put in place by some demonic or satanic power.
3) Recognize the evidence as a valid, unnassailable evidential case that you did, in fact, evolve from the same ancestor as the chimp - but, in the likeness of Kurt Wise, state that you retain an unshakable faith that the Genesis account is completely true, and your ancestors were created in the image of God, abruptly, 6 to 10 thousand years ago. In short, your faith trumps MN, period.
4) Other??
Follow-up issues: many creationists argue that, were the theory of an "animal" ancestry of human beings true, morality would be meaningless. Thus the question: if presented with ironclad proof of your animal ancestry, would you discard your morals ? Similar arguments are presented along the lines of "I didn't come from no ape"; hinting that a person's worth is influenced by the stature of their great^150,000 grand father. Would you feel an instant drop of self esteem and self worth, in face of the proof?
(Might I add, this is the type of "what if" discussion I prefer to keep at a :cheers: light-hearted tone... if anything I say comes across as inflammatory, deliberately confrontational, or otherwise distracts from friendly discussion, please let me know).
Thus, I present the following (admittedly far-fetched) hypothetical to put the issue in the limelight:
Assume you and a chimpanzee are in the same room. A crack team of archeologists, geologists, geneticists, and scientists of other disciplines have joined you as well. The geneticists examine the DNA from a strand of your hair, and write the entire genome into a computer. Same with the chimp. The team of scientists go into the world, and track down your father and the male parent of the chimp, bringing back DNA samples. Genomes are extracted, and fatherhood is proven beyond a doubt. Samples of DNA from your father's father and chimp's father's father are obtained, genomes extracted, and "grandfatherhood" is proven beyond reasonable doubt for both yourself and the chimpanzee.
The crack team of archeologists and geologists are able to go out into the world, and find remains of your (and the chimp's) great grand fathers, great-great-gf's, etc. For each set of remains, DNA is extracted, and fatherhood of the previous generation is proven. Ultimately, 300,000 ancestors are examined using this process, with no question of direct lineage. However, the 140,000 fossil examined in your lineage, compared to the 160,000 in the chimps, are shown unequivicably to have been brothers. The 300,001th ancestor, likewise, is shown to be the father of those two brothers - you and the monkey, in any court of in the US, would be declared 140,000th cousins, 20,000 removed.
--- end hypothetical
So, given the hypothetical described above, I'm curious what camps creationists would find themselves in...
1) Deny, deny, deny - ignore the ironclad nature of the DNA-evidence, insist it *MUST* be false (or, perhaps, faked), even with an utter lack of grounds for questioning it's validity beyond the conlusions to which it leads.
2) See the evidence as a "test" of faith - put in place by some demonic or satanic power.
3) Recognize the evidence as a valid, unnassailable evidential case that you did, in fact, evolve from the same ancestor as the chimp - but, in the likeness of Kurt Wise, state that you retain an unshakable faith that the Genesis account is completely true, and your ancestors were created in the image of God, abruptly, 6 to 10 thousand years ago. In short, your faith trumps MN, period.
4) Other??
Follow-up issues: many creationists argue that, were the theory of an "animal" ancestry of human beings true, morality would be meaningless. Thus the question: if presented with ironclad proof of your animal ancestry, would you discard your morals ? Similar arguments are presented along the lines of "I didn't come from no ape"; hinting that a person's worth is influenced by the stature of their great^150,000 grand father. Would you feel an instant drop of self esteem and self worth, in face of the proof?
(Might I add, this is the type of "what if" discussion I prefer to keep at a :cheers: light-hearted tone... if anything I say comes across as inflammatory, deliberately confrontational, or otherwise distracts from friendly discussion, please let me know).