RE: [asa] Theo-Neo-Darwnian Synthesis + Chromosome Fusion WAS Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real person?)

From: John Walley <>
Date: Thu Apr 17 2008 - 21:48:59 EDT

I mean no special significance in including Darwin in the Theo-Neo Synthesis
nomenclature however that is not intended to be putting any words in
Darwin's mouth or causing him to "profess theology". It is simply stating
the reconciliation of Christian theology with Darwinian evolution. There may
be other types of evolution like Dawkinsian for instance that cannot be
reconciled but from my amateur perspective, that doesn't seem to be the case
for Darwin's theory to me in spite of his personal views. In fact the
"endless forms most beautiful" closing paragraph of Origin seems to me to be
quite eloquent and lends itself nicely to TE even if Darwin didn't intend
that or even personally believe that.
Yes Darwin's theory has been refined but even Behe only takes issue with the
random mutation component but accepts the rest as-is. To me that doesn't
disqualify Darwinism from being compatible with TE as long as we focus on
just the mechanism and not stretch it like Dawkins to exclude supernatural
agency. In fact it appears to be the tactic of ID to endow Darwinism with
this straw man attribute of atheism so they can attack it, which I think is
inaccurate and somewhat dishonest. I think when discussing evolution and
design, it is imperative to distinguish between Darwinian evolution which
can be compatible with TE and Dawkinsian evolution which likely cannot.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Arago []
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 3:53 AM
To: John Walley; 'David Opderbeck'; 'Alexanian, Moorad'
Cc: 'Bethany Sollereder'; 'Jack'; 'George Murphy'; 'ASA list'
Subject: Re: [asa] Theo-Neo-Darwnian Synthesis + Chromosome Fusion WAS Who
do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real person?)

Yes, I agree with you John on the well-worded expression of David O's
position. Not understanding 'exactly how' the stories mesh together is/can
be what inspires further reflection, meditation and even scientific
theorising on the topic. I am glad you have come to 'rest' with where you
are while, as you already know, noting that I find the TE/EC position
lacking because it gives too much credit to evolutionary biology (rep:
natural science), while neglecting other evolutionary theories. David O's
position is not heavy-handed with 'evolutionary philosophy,' which seems to
permeate the TE/EC pov much more deeply.

Credit given, I wonder if you could clarify why you would choose to call
such a position a theo-neo-Darwinian synthesis (TNDS, for short), i.e.
seemingly forcing Darwin into a position of professing theology, when he
refused to speak about religion publically in his later years? Such a view
would seem to be a 'tack-on' to Darwin rather than flowing from Darwin's
T. Dobzhansky and P. Teilhard de Chardin are the recognized pioneers of
'integrating' science and faith using evolution(ism), which you deem
previously were 'wedged' apart for you, presumably by YECism or biblical
literalism. Why not call it theo-neo-evolutionary synthesis (TNES) instead
and leave Darwin out of it? This is partly about semantics, and partly about
appeal to authority. After all, there are new evolutionists today and indeed
some of Darwin's views are clearly and indefensibly obsolete
Your curiosity about the 'mechanism of speciation' made me smile. Especially
this sentence: " the chromosome fusion of a single member of a primate
population would convey to it an adaptive advantage over the rest of the
population?" Have you seen the blockbuster "The Matrix"? This is exactly
what the character 'Neo' is, an anomaly 'designed/composed' by the system,
(in the M3 we discover) 'the Architect.' The 'mating with other non-fused
members' is fictionalised as the relation between Neo and Trinity.
As with you, I see no way this can happen 'naturalistically' either. In the
Matrix films, the term 'fate' is extremely important. However, in our
discussion Providence and predestination, as well as others (for
naturalistically-minded Christians, the only alternative may seem to be
'supernatural') become relevant. Again, there is no 'simply natural'
explanation for what happened. One must appeal to an 'architect' or
'designer,' or 'mechanic' (if using mechanistic language), or some other
non-naturalistic metaphor to open-up or uncover the deeper meanings or
(historical) truths of how, when, why, where (and on the parallel thread),
with who it originatively happened.
Indeed, Neo was 'original' in his own way (though the film says he was
something like a clone of previous anomalies).

John Walley <> wrote:

This gets my vote as the best Theology/Neo-Darwinian Synthesis theory (or
Theo-Neo-Darwinian Synthesis) that I have heard. I think the net-net is that
we choose to believe that it meshed somehow but is impossible to tell
exactly how. I guess that is where the faith comes in. Anyway this is
similar to where my TE journey takes me as well and like you all I can say
is that it works for me and I think I have concluded that that is about the
best I can hope for at this point. It is somewhat anti-climactic but the
after the initial joy of stumbling onto TE and the liberation it yields by
removing the wedge between science and faith and integrating the two, I now
find that it ultimately leaves me in the state of Job after God spoke to him
out of the cloud where I feel like all I can do as well is put my hand over
my mouth.
As an aside, I have been wondering about the mechanics of the speciation
into modern day homo sapiens sapiens. What plausible scenarios exist for how
the chromosome fusion of a single member of a primate population would
convey to it an adaptive advantage over the rest of the population? A
chromosome irregularity of this type today would most accurately be
described as a birth defect it seems.
And how would this single sample successfully mate with other non-fused
members such that only fused samples are selected and propagated with no
known surviving hybrids in between? Maybe I am misunderstanding the process
but I have wrestled with this and can't piece together how this could have
happened naturalistically. Can anyone explain this or are their any theories
on this and if so can someone direct me to any resources on it?

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:28 AM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: Bethany Sollereder; Jack; George Murphy; ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] Who do Adam & Eve represent? (Was: Was Adam a real

To me, it depends how the narrative is supposed to be understood and what
you mean by "wrong."
The narrative pictures God directly shaping Adam out of dust and forming Eve
out of Adam's rib in a garden in Mesopotamia. Further, the narrative seems
to presume that this pair is the actual fountainhead of all humanity.
The fossil record and the record of molecular biology, however, seem to tell
a different story of the gradual emergence of a group of people out of
Africa, with no clear deliniation between "human" and "pre-human."
It seems to me there are two possibilities: 1. one of these stories is
true and one is false; or 2. the stories mesh together somehow.
Personally, I very much wish it were possible to argue persuasively that the
"scientific" story is false. But, while I don't think the scientific story
can be "proven" to be true, it seems to be based on quite reasonable
inferences from the empirical evidence.
I also very much wish it were possible to argue persuasively that the
Biblical story is false in the sense of being entirely non-historical even
if true in another sense. Some are persuaded this is possible; at this
point in my personal journey, I find this unravels too many things that are
important to me.
To me, right now, the stories have to mesh together in some sense somehow.
The Genesis story isn't "literal" but it also isn't non-historical. It
describes God's special attention to and relationship with the first pair to
be fully and truly "human," perhaps even directly created by God. This
first truly human pair can choose to obey God and thereby, in a sense, bring
all the creation "into the garden" through their stewardship. Perhaps this
involves also their headship over the rest of emerging humanity. But they
sin, are cast out of their state of idyllic fellowship and into the
slipstream of biological humanity. Yet they remain spiritually / federally
the heads of humanity and we all are bound to them in this sense, in the
same way that those who trust in Christ are bound to him. All of this is
known to us only by revelation and it is opaque to science. It probably
doesn't compeletly work, but it sort of works for now for me.


Instant message from any web browser! Try the new
<> Yahoo! Canada
Messenger for the Web BETA

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Apr 17 21:51:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 17 2008 - 21:51:42 EDT