Out of Africa vs. Eden?

[Josh]

Currently, the majority view of anthropologists and other scientists is that modern humans originated in Africa with anywhere from an original pair to small community of no more than a few thousand.

Of course, the bible seems to indicate the origin of humanity somewhere near the middle east (the most likely location of Eden being near or under the Persian Gulf).

I've been interested to note that what seems an apparent contradiction has a nice resolution.

East Africa (Ethiopia) is the current hot spot for modern human origins. At first glance it seems a far journey by land from the middle east/ Persian Gulf, what with the Red Sea/ Indian ocean in the way. However, anthropologists have been suggesting a very early migration from East Africa to the Middle East, not necessarily through the Sinai Peninsula. It turns out that the Red Sea would not have been nearly the obstacle it is today tens of thousands of years ago. They are suggesting direct migration from East Africa to the lower Arabian penisula, which would at the time have been water by two major rivers (which can readily be identified with the garden of Eden's Gihon and Pishon rivers*)

But if a very early migration of humans from East Africa to the Middle East can be envisioned, then the reserve is also equally possible. If the original human population, descended from 2, migrated south into East Africa shortly after the Fall, then they would have been leaving the evidence there that we now see of early anatomically modern humans 50,000 to 150, 000 years ago.

For one example among many, see: www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2627/26271801.jpg


*The evidence of these ancient riverbeds can still be seen on satellite imagery.

[atheist jon]

Surely you have already made a conclusion and then you are trying to fit facts in to support that conclusion? Besides, you are overlooking that evidence shows that the migration north from East Africa did not STOP at the Middle East. They carried on throughout mainland Europe to France and Spain where they possibly could have been contemporaries of neanderthal man.

Does this not leave your hypothesis with some questions to answer?

[Josh]

Granted, for other reasons I'm inclined to see the origin of humanity in or near the Persian gulf, as taught in Scripture, as accurate.

It doesn't seem to me that I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, though. How does my proposal seem like a force-fit?

Besides, you are overlooking that evidence shows that the migration north from East Africa did not STOP at the Middle East. They carried on throughout mainland Europe to France and Spain where they possibly could have been contemporaries of neanderthal man.

How does this challenge my view?

Humanity originating in or near the Persian gulf could have eventually (up to 20,000 years later, though) spread northward as well as southward.

Neanderthals don't present a particular challenge to my current views. Did you anticipate that they might?

[Josh]

Also, let's pull back for a minute and look at the larger picture.

In the last 100 years, scientists who cling to a strict naturalistic paradigm have gone from imagining humanity originating at multiple places and times around the globe toward the idea that humanity came from one location (very near biblical Eden) and from either one original pair or a very small original group.

The trajectory of current thought about the size and location of human origins is decidedly in the direction of the general tenets of the biblical account of creation, so I don't think questioning a few minor details is an act of desperation. Rather, I would expect that as the "target" point of human origins is nearing what the ancients always said, some are desperate to avoid the conclusion*



*I think the desperation is evidenced by the questionable logic of, "X is where, to date, we have found the oldest dated fossils" so "X must be where humanity originated" rather than to say "X is either where humanity originated or near it".

[Josh]

Jon, please feel free to dig into any of these science related posts with me (see the whole folder here: www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=science) I need a brush up as our friend Moritz hasn't had the time to drop by for a long while. I miss the "iron sharpens iron". I'm curious how some of my views might have changed or might be challenged by the steady stream of new evidences coming out of the science field.

[atheist jon]

Hello Mr Josh. I haven't got time to demolish your arguments in full right now , but I hate to pass the opportunity to annoy you just a little bit.

"...scientists who cling to a strict naturalistic paradigm" = Scientists who practice the scientific method? = Scientists.

Talk soon. Jon

[Josh]

Au contraire. You know that the folks who developed the scientific method weren't naturalists, right?

One need not hold to an a priori rejection of the supernatural to follow the scientific method. In fact, one could argue that such a rejection itself isn't true to the scientific method.

[atheist jon]

Hold on a moment. The phrase "...scientists who cling to a strict naturalistic paradigm" implies that there are scientists who, in the course of their work, do not. In which case they are not practicing science. My comment did not make a judgement of an individuals personal beliefs though. They are irrelevant. Isaac Newton particularly, and Charles Darwin too, were both religious and there are many other examples. But their scientific discoveries still have to be backed up by evidence that can be tested.
Rejection of the paranormal does not necessarily mean a complete dismissal of it. Someone may be an atheist and still believe in astrology or homeopathy for instance. What an individual scientist personally believes has no bearing on what can and cannot be proven true.
So in that sense the scientific method MUST reject the paranormal until it has something to investigate. It may exist but we have nothing to test so it is simply ignored until there is.

[Josh]

First off, in the strictest sense, since we are talking about events in the distant past, we're already outside the realm of direct- verification-science. We can test certain aspects of origins theories, but we cannot test the theories themselves, because we cannot replay the tape with the exact conditions (We don't even know the exact conditions)

Anthropology is a mixture of science and history and each discipline has it's own verification criteria.

Still, as you say, anthropologists must use scientific evidence to back up their theories. Since we have scientific evidence* that may possibly support the existence of supernatural agencies, we shouldn't rule it out a priori when we do science.

But before you object that the examples I'm giving are non-evidence, perhaps we can save that for another time. I'm curious to hear how you think the latest research in origins presents obstacles to the Christian view of origins.


*for instance, design evidence/ possible examples of irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, etc..

[Josh]

Come to think of it, it's quite enough that there are ancient documents suggesting an origin of man around the middle east to give us reason to look for evidence for the claim.

Think of how many scientific discoveries have come about because the Bible first gave archaeologists the hint to look for them.

The evidential threshold is pretty low for a theory, and ancient documents are better than the basis for a lot of theories that were eventually demonstrated.

[Josh]

Jon, don't keep me in suspense!

[atheist jon]

Josh. There is no 'scientific' evidence that even 'may possibly' support the existence of supernatural agencies. You have presented merely 'evidence', but after examination it turns out that it is poor evidence. ie. design evidence/ possible examples of irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, etc. Backdoor creationism.

The supernatural would be fantastic for scientists to examine but unfortunately there has been nothing offered up that can be tested. So until there is actaully something to investigate it has to be ignored by science. I'm sure they are keeping their eyes out for it though.

'The evidential threshold is pretty low for a theory.' Really? Not for a scientific theory it is not. For a hypothesis perhaps.

The origins of man through the mechanism of evolution are well known. This is proven science regardless of whether it fits an individuals worldview or not. It's a fact.

The origins of life on this planet are unknown at this time. This is also a fact.

[Josh]

You have presented merely 'evidence', but after examination it turns out that it is poor evidence. ie. design evidence/ possible examples of irreducible complexity, fine-tuning, etc. Backdoor creationism.

That a sweeping dismissal of evidence that convinced one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century to become a theist! (Antony Flew)

Fine tuning is a perfectly sound bit of evidence.

The origins of man through the mechanism of evolution are well known. This is proven science regardless of whether it fits an individuals worldview or not. It's a fact.

Micro-evolution within a species and with bacteria, yes. Not at the level of fact yet for speciation, though there is reasonably strong evidence.

The origins of life on this planet are unknown at this time. This is also a fact.

Surprising, isn't it? Life has to arise suddenly within a mere 40 million year window by natural processes in a hostile environment and we can't postulate even a solid theory.