Tuesday, June 22, 2010

P. Z. Myers does not exist. Done

In a post titled "Adam and Eve did not exist. Done," P. Z. Myers has announced that Adam and Eve did not exist:
There was no Adam. There was no Eve. We are the product of populations
and pools of genes that are briefly instantiated in individuals, and
it's a great conceptual error to even fuss over finding "the"
many-times-great grandparents of us all.
So, Myers, a self-described product of populations and pools of genes that has briefly instantiated himself as an individual, in pressing his case that we shouldn't identify our particular antecedents, identifies our particular antecedents, namely, populations and pools of genes. In the Darwinian Myth that replaces the Theistic Myth, the rational beings called Adam and Eve have been replaced by the irrational processes called Populations and Pools of Genes.

You can say at least this for the Adam and Eve theory: it at least allows for the possibility that their descendants are the kind of beings who could rationally reject the Adam and Eve theory, whereas under the Populations and Pools of Genes Myth the beings that are its products cannot possibly rationally accept the Populations and Pools of Genes Myth--or anything else for that matter, since its materialist undergirding cannot account for rationality in the first place.

And what's even more odd is that these products of populations and pools of genes who cannot account for rationality at all are the very ones who go around giving lectures to the descendants of Adam and Eve who can account for it about the importance of rationality.

Go figure.



13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Glad to hear Martin is not a creationist. He "doesn't know."

Martin Cothran said...

That's right. And your point?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Why can't materialism account for rationality as well as Adam and Eve do?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

For the simple reason that truth and validity are not material things.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

This creates a paradox. All of the objective scientific evidence converges on the evolution of populations of organisms and gene pools as the best explanation for our existence. The only way to reach the conclusion that all humans are descended from two people lacking ancestors who lived about 6,000 years ago is to simply assume its true. How do you explain this mystery?

BTW, since you don't know where we came from, does this mean you don't know if you are rational or not? Since you seem quite sure that you can't be rational if Adam and Eve didn't exist.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I did not say that we can't be rational if Adam and Eve didn't exist. I said that the materialism of people like Myers is not consistent with the possibility of rationality and that the Adam and Eve account is. That does not mean that the Adam and Eve account is the only one that allows for the possibility of rationality, nor does it mean I believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Given that, there is no paradox, nor does it cause a problem for what I believe about the possibility of rationality.

Now, do you have a materialist account rationality we can look at?

Martin Cothran said...

No, nevermind about the materialist account. Let's stick with my original point.

Now that I've hopefully clarified what I said, do you still have problems with my assertion?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Yes, I do. You assert that material brains cannot produce ideas, but brain activity is clearly linked to thinking. You have no more of a clue as to how a "spirit" or "soul" can produce ideas than I do as to how a brain does it, but at least we know brains actually exist and play a major role in the thought process. Plus larger brained animals have been demonstrated to be self-aware. This would seem to be a problem for Christian theology, which as I understand it maintains that only humans have souls. So if an animal is only material, how could it be aware of its own existence?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

So now we're skipping to the mind/brain question? Why can't we stick to the point? The point was that materialism--the belief that the only thing that exists is material--could not account for the non-material. And since truth and validity are not material, materialism cannot therefore account for them.

Why do we have to continually be changing the subject?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Mars Hill is aware that you might not believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

You seem rather fixated with this secret of mine that I have been publicly stating for years on this blog.

In fact, you ought to check out my most recent post--about the tentativeness of all scientific beliefs. It seems like my belief about Adam and Eve--that you can't prove their existence--are well within the scientific spirit.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

So you are saying that PZ literally believes that ideas don't exist? Can you provide a citation to where he said that?

Martin Cothran said...

Can you provide a citation to where I said that?