Original Sin Genomics

Before I moved the Loom to this address earlier this year, I got a fair amount of comments on my blogs about evolution from creationists. (See this entry, for example.) They fell off after the move, but now they’re back in fine form. Today we are joined by Kevin Anderson, editor-in-chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Here’s a little background: last week I wrote here about stumbling across a radio show put out by the Institute of Creation Research. It claimed that recent research on the human genome supports Young Earth creationism. Dr. Anderson spoke on the program about how sickle-cell anemia and lactose tolerance, and other genetic changes in human populations have nothing to do with evolution but are just the result of original sin.

Dr. Anderson’s outfit is not shy about how life began. Here I quote from their “statement of belief”:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

Are we clear?

The radio show I caught was perfectly consonant with this belief. In my post, I pointed out some of the many errors and misleading statements in the show, including some made by Dr. Anderson. Well, today he has left a comment on the blog that’s a doozy.

Check it out, and check out my response in the comment thread. I’ll be curious to see where this goes…

Update: 8/1 9:50 am: I appreciate the comments that are already coming in–as always, interesting stuff. Rather than splitting comments between two posts and dispersing the conversation, could people leave all their comments on the original post? Thanks.

0 thoughts on “Original Sin Genomics

  1. I’m impressed that you could even understand what he was saying. “You assume that all beneficial mutations serve evolution? This is only true if you refuse to acknowledge that evolution is actually common descent, and not just merely any change.”

    ??

    Looks like someone used a random creationist argument generator and ended up with word salad they don’t understand.

  2. Dr. Anderson spoke on the program about how sickle-cell anemia and lactose tolerance, and other genetic changes in human populations have nothing to do with evolution but are just the result of original sin.

    I have a question for him, I haven’t received any responses from skeptics elaborating as of yet, and it would be a first for a Creationist, if they’d answer. Just how “physical” was the so-called immortality of Genesis? No death before the fall?

    Did man and all the creatures in the Garden partake in the tree of life?

    I heard from one skeptic, how to the recent day some still search for the Fountain of Youth, and a lot of ancient cultures believed the human could take a bite of magic fruit and live forever.

    Revelation:2:7: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
    Revelation:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
    Revelation:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.(KJV)

    This tree of life sounds very much like a physical immortality for imperfect bodies. I mean, if Adam were built immortal and perfect to begin with, what need would he have of any “tree of life” to sustain his body?

    According to the scripture, after the curses were handed out to snake, woman and man, Adam still had the potential for eternal life. It was only a matter of getting his hands on the magic fruit.

    Gn:3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV)

    So, man (and animal) were cut off from the lifeline of immortality when driven from Eden? For all we know, Adam may have been lactose intolerant.

  3. What I can’t get past is the fact that I just don’t understand the psychology behind creating a creationist organization in the first place. If there is an omnipotent creator God, surely he doesn’t need our help in defending his own existence. If a) the goal is to “win over sinners and unbelievers,” and b) there really is a shaky foundation under evolutionary biology, wouldn’t a more effective tactic be to quietly work within the academic and peer review system without revealing your agenda, and let the facts of the universe (and, if you’re right, God) speak for themselves?

  4. opriginal sin, that’s where Adam eats the apple and we are all sinners because of it. WOW

    many ancient cultures punished the children of the initiator of crime. They just carried this into their bible. “He’s a sinner, kill his children”

    Sorry, a god that punishes all for what Adam did is not one that we should admire. If we started punishing the children of criminals we would be rediculed. Then they say “god is love” WOW

  5. Carl, could you ask Dr. Anderson what “ei;(i umlauted and underlined)” is? I can’t find it on Dictionary.com, can’t in fact even type it, and even the Germans don’t umlaut “i”. Thanks.

  6. For what it’s worth, i with a diaresis (or umlaut, though technically it isn’t that in those languages) is used in several languages (Welsh and Ukrainian, off the top of my head), but I don’t think this is anything more than a mark-up error.

  7. This statement is interesting, “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.”

    Given that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give contradictory chronologies of the creation, it is hard to see how they can both be inerrant.

    There are multiple inconsistancies which you can consult for yourselves, but just to mention one. In G 1, god created the animals and then man(adam). In G 2, god created man(adam) and then created the animals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *