I just started checking out your podcast a month or so back, starting from podcast #1. I am still listening to casts you put up in 2017, so I am not sure if you have ever did a deep dive on the _Chromosome 2_ controversy.
I have have had little luck digging up much else other than a few papers at ICR. I get this one thrown at me repeatedly by a couple of evolutionists, probably because I don't have much of an informed opinion on the matter. So it seems to have become their go to argument when our paths cross.
Although I get a little lost in the scientific jargon used to explain the Chromosome 2 issue, because evolutionists often seem to start from a position of assuming evolution is a proven truth, they conclude that the apparent fused chromosome 2 is evidence of man having evolved from primates. But even if it was agreed upon that Chromosome 2 is indeed a fused chromosome, it seems to me the conclusion drawn is an absolute leap of faith, concluding that the fusion which apparently occurred in a distant primate relative is what resulted in evolved man.
But of the few papers I found on the issue, the most recent one by Jeffery Tomkins, seemed to deny the likelihood of Chromosome 2 being a fused chromosome at all.
I wonder if you are in the know on this issue and can distill things down a little more?
**I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears**
Hi Keith! First of all I want to say welcome to the Society. I'm grateful and excited to have you here and that you are finding the content useful! I have not done a deep-dive on this issue, however I do address it in my "Searching for Adam" series (I think it's episode 26).
I am friends with Dr. Robert Carter, one of the premier creationary geneticists today. He's a wonderful teacher, so I will see if we can get him to provide a simplified yet comprehensive explanation. It's funny you mention this, because I am also interested in this but have found the available resources a bit vague and not entirely accessible.
The chapter that addresses this issue in Searching for Adam is written by Tompkins as well as Nathaniel Jeasnon, another brilliant biologist. Their chapter brings a helpful bit of context to this discussion: namely, that certain experiments are unhelpful to the origins debate. In this example, since a creation model makes ZERO predictions about the genetic relationship between humans and chimpanzees, it's alleged existence is not proof that evolution is true. AT BEST, it is a piece of data that FITS the expectations of their model. Well, that's all well and good, but it does nothing to cast doubt on a creation model that doesn't make a prediction either way.
So I think this is just another rendition of the common error folks make when they claim that there's "no evidence" for creation or "no evidence" for evolution. The truth is, we have data points that could POSSIBLY have a happy home in both models. Where the rubber meets the proverbial road is when each model makes a testable prediction about a specific data point and one model proves superior to the others. As is demonstrated by Jeanson and Tompkins (and continues to be demonstrated by new research), those rare experiments that DO have something to say most often favor the creation model.
Can you point me in the direction of the highest level debate/discussion you've seen between Young Earth and Old Earth models based on scripture and science?
I find that the book, 'Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation' is high level debate on the Scriptural side of that concern. I especially like Jud Davis's contribution to the book (Chapter Seven).
Believe it or not, this is difficult to find. The folks who have substance to their work rarely (if ever) engage in public debate in this arena. Most of the debate and discussion material is by Ken Ham and his followers, who I find to be characteristically less than charitable, though there are exceptions.
At the very least, the proponents on either side are some of the best and well-qualified to argue their respective points. And this one delves into both Scripture and science in a bit more substantive way than most.
Suffice it to say, though, that significant factors are missing from that debate, especially with respect to Hebrew scholarship. In the resources doc I put together I am going to include some great resources from well qualified Hebrew sources.
Part of the problem, too, is that debates that cover this topic *in general* are usually carried out by non-specialists. There are some debates between specialists in the different areas that I think are fairly useful. I'll be including some of those in the resources doc as well.
So couple more things (your question prompted me to nerd out on creation stuff for a few days again LOL):
You need to check out "The Fool and the Heretic" by Todd Wood and Darrel Falk. To be sure, I both agree and disagree with both of them at various points. But the general point of the book deals with how folks on two opposing sides of the question can come together. It is not heavy with science--but it isnt meant to be. Still, I think it's an important contribution to the discussion.
These two (Venema and Jeanson) are, respectively, just about the "golden boys" of researchers on either side of the issue. And while it is before a lay audience so they go out of their way to simplify concepts through analogy, etc., the discussion gets quite technical at times and I think this discussion, perhaps more than any I've seen, demonstrates the strength of a creationist position when a credentialed person is driving the research. The last 40 mins or so are the "panel" portion which, if you don't have time to watch any of the rest, I would recommend, though the full debate will give the panel discussion a lot more context.
I just started checking out your podcast a month or so back, starting from podcast #1. I am still listening to casts you put up in 2017, so I am not sure if you have ever did a deep dive on the _Chromosome 2_ controversy.
I have have had little luck digging up much else other than a few papers at ICR. I get this one thrown at me repeatedly by a couple of evolutionists, probably because I don't have much of an informed opinion on the matter. So it seems to have become their go to argument when our paths cross.
Although I get a little lost in the scientific jargon used to explain the Chromosome 2 issue, because evolutionists often seem to start from a position of assuming evolution is a proven truth, they conclude that the apparent fused chromosome 2 is evidence of man having evolved from primates. But even if it was agreed upon that Chromosome 2 is indeed a fused chromosome, it seems to me the conclusion drawn is an absolute leap of faith, concluding that the fusion which apparently occurred in a distant primate relative is what resulted in evolved man.
But of the few papers I found on the issue, the most recent one by Jeffery Tomkins, seemed to deny the likelihood of Chromosome 2 being a fused chromosome at all.
I wonder if you are in the know on this issue and can distill things down a little more?
**I sought the Lord, and he heard me, and delivered me from all my fears**
_Psalms 34:4_
Hi Keith! First of all I want to say welcome to the Society. I'm grateful and excited to have you here and that you are finding the content useful! I have not done a deep-dive on this issue, however I do address it in my "Searching for Adam" series (I think it's episode 26).
I am friends with Dr. Robert Carter, one of the premier creationary geneticists today. He's a wonderful teacher, so I will see if we can get him to provide a simplified yet comprehensive explanation. It's funny you mention this, because I am also interested in this but have found the available resources a bit vague and not entirely accessible.
The chapter that addresses this issue in Searching for Adam is written by Tompkins as well as Nathaniel Jeasnon, another brilliant biologist. Their chapter brings a helpful bit of context to this discussion: namely, that certain experiments are unhelpful to the origins debate. In this example, since a creation model makes ZERO predictions about the genetic relationship between humans and chimpanzees, it's alleged existence is not proof that evolution is true. AT BEST, it is a piece of data that FITS the expectations of their model. Well, that's all well and good, but it does nothing to cast doubt on a creation model that doesn't make a prediction either way.
So I think this is just another rendition of the common error folks make when they claim that there's "no evidence" for creation or "no evidence" for evolution. The truth is, we have data points that could POSSIBLY have a happy home in both models. Where the rubber meets the proverbial road is when each model makes a testable prediction about a specific data point and one model proves superior to the others. As is demonstrated by Jeanson and Tompkins (and continues to be demonstrated by new research), those rare experiments that DO have something to say most often favor the creation model.
Can you point me in the direction of the highest level debate/discussion you've seen between Young Earth and Old Earth models based on scripture and science?
I find that the book, 'Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation' is high level debate on the Scriptural side of that concern. I especially like Jud Davis's contribution to the book (Chapter Seven).
Oh my word! I had NO clue this book existed. I'm buying it literally right now. Thanks for the recommendation!
Believe it or not, this is difficult to find. The folks who have substance to their work rarely (if ever) engage in public debate in this arena. Most of the debate and discussion material is by Ken Ham and his followers, who I find to be characteristically less than charitable, though there are exceptions.
The other practical point is I haven't been following what debates are out there too closely because I am more interested in the positive case for young age creationism than I am the debate between the views. Based on this question I am actually putting together a resources document that will live here in the Society. In the meantime, this one is pretty good: https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Do-we-live-on-an-old-or-young-earth-Unbelievable-17-Jun-2012
At the very least, the proponents on either side are some of the best and well-qualified to argue their respective points. And this one delves into both Scripture and science in a bit more substantive way than most.
Suffice it to say, though, that significant factors are missing from that debate, especially with respect to Hebrew scholarship. In the resources doc I put together I am going to include some great resources from well qualified Hebrew sources.
Part of the problem, too, is that debates that cover this topic *in general* are usually carried out by non-specialists. There are some debates between specialists in the different areas that I think are fairly useful. I'll be including some of those in the resources doc as well.
Interesting! Thanks Steve
So couple more things (your question prompted me to nerd out on creation stuff for a few days again LOL):
You need to check out "The Fool and the Heretic" by Todd Wood and Darrel Falk. To be sure, I both agree and disagree with both of them at various points. But the general point of the book deals with how folks on two opposing sides of the question can come together. It is not heavy with science--but it isnt meant to be. Still, I think it's an important contribution to the discussion.
Second, you should check out this dialogue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hQTs0n6S_U
These two (Venema and Jeanson) are, respectively, just about the "golden boys" of researchers on either side of the issue. And while it is before a lay audience so they go out of their way to simplify concepts through analogy, etc., the discussion gets quite technical at times and I think this discussion, perhaps more than any I've seen, demonstrates the strength of a creationist position when a credentialed person is driving the research. The last 40 mins or so are the "panel" portion which, if you don't have time to watch any of the rest, I would recommend, though the full debate will give the panel discussion a lot more context.
Right up my alley. Thanks Steve!