Templeton Foundation Converges Adam & Eve

Evolution is a lie. Life on Earth is created, it is not a freak biochemical accident. But the strength of Evolution is that it lets you believe anything you want, with the one single caveat that you must not believe in the Creator.

Similarly, the strength of a grant-issuing foundation is that one of its sock puppets can authenticate the other.

Here comes a prophet of Evolution, wearing the priestly skinsuit of a scientist, to explain that if you want your Adam & Eve then you can have your Adam & Eve. But still no Jesus!

Evolutionary science and genetics breakthroughs show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution: Report

h ttps://www.theblaze.com/news/newly-discovered-genetics-breakthroughs-show-adam-and-eve-are-not-incompatible-with-evolution-report

By Sarah Taylor, 3 January 2022

Christian scientists say that evolutionary science may very well be “making space” for Adam and Eve, Fox News’ Tyler O’Neil reported on Monday.

O’Neil reported that scientists, pointing to “genetics breakthroughs,” insist that Adam and Eve may not necessarily contradict the theory of evolution.

Buckle up for one mother of a strawman argument! No Christian uses the story of Eden as evidence for Christianity. There were no witnesses to it. Adam has no literary legacy. We cannot find Eden or recreate it in the laboratory. One’s acceptance of Adam & Eve depends upon one’s preexisting opinion on whether Scripture can be trusted.

Although I admit, I get a lot of mileage from pointing out how perfectly Original Sin describes observed sexual dynamics.

Anyway, the account of Adam & Eve is an example of how Christianity is incompatible with evolution. It is not our evidence against evolution. It is not something that a Christian would try to debunk or an non-Christian, try to accept.

Christians — many of whom have rejected the theory of evolution as it previously indicated that there was no room for God’s first people, Adam and Eve — have long argued about what some see as an impasse between faith and science.

S. Joshua Swamidass, associate professor at St. Louis’ Washington University School of Medicine, told Fox that the “societal conflict” of Christianity versus evolution has been “deep and stubborn.”

“Now, in a surprise twist, evolutionary science is making space for Adam and Eve,” Swamidass explained. “It turns out that the theological questions are about genealogical ancestry, not genetics. In this paradigm shift, we are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell.”

Can you imagine if the Theory Of Gravitation was rewritten as frequently as the Theory Of Evolution? You wouldn’t dare to go outside without being tethered like an astronaut.

Who is this Swami-ass?

Segue

h ttps://peacefulscience.org/articles/inquiry-into-common-ground/

By Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, 2019

We are pleased to announce the award of a $25,000 grant for two years. With this grant, we aim to define common ground in the origin debates. This grant was awarded by the STEAM project, which has funding from the John Templeton Foundation. This grant is directed by Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, housed at Washington University in St. Louis, and administered by Saint Louis campus ministries ( Intervarsity and Cru).

For shame, Intervarsity and the try-hard loser formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ.

Over the next two years, this project seeks to solve this problem by identifying common ground: points of significant agreement in the origins debate. We hope this common ground could be the foundation for science-engaged religious communities.

There is common ground, but it is hidden. The current framing of the debate, as a war between creation and evolution, hides our common ground from view. The fact that the common ground is so hidden is exactly the reason that this project is so significant. Identifying our common ground will enable ecumenical ministries to productively engage mainstream science. Common ground is a path to peace.

If peace is the absence of conflict then inmates on a chain gang are the real symbol of world peace. See how well they work together in Unity, peacefully obeying the deputy with the shotgun!

End segue

In Swamidass’ 2019 book, “The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry,” the professor argues that genetics and evolutionary theory can work hand in hand with the existence of Adam and Eve.

“Most readers of Genesis understood Adam and Eve to be (1) ancestors of us all, and (2) miraculously created without parents of their own,” Swamidass told the outlet. “In contrast, evolution teaches that (3) we share common ancestors with apes, and (4) we arise from a large population, not a single couple. This conflict of fact only seemed solvable by revising foundational Christian theological beliefs, or by rejecting evolution.”

Correct.

“But now, clearing up some big scientific understandings, we know that all four of these things can be true at the same time,” he continued. “Even if Adam and Eve lived as recently as just 6,000 years ago, they would be the genealogical ancestors of everyone across the globe by AD 1. They could even have been created de novo, from the dust and a rib. Of course, at the same time, we would also descend from people outside the Garden, others whom God created by a providentially governed process of evolution.

Providentially… governed. That tired old lie that God used trial & error to create life. “Evolution is true but this weirdo extraterrestrial came along and guided the process in order to take credit.”

In his GAE model — Genealogical Adam and Eve — Swamidass claimed that biological humans, despite the span of time of between the time at which Adam and Eve existed and modern day, may still share a common ancestor with apes as per the theory of evolution, but that God could have “created Adam and Eve from the dust and a rib, without parents, and these two became the ancestors of all humans by 1 A.D.”

Wouldn’t God’s proper title be Monkey Breeder, not Creator?

And what’s this about 1 A.D.? We’re talking about Adam & Eve, not Joseph & Mary. I suspect Smarmy-Ass doesn’t respect Christianity enough to even understand our beliefs correctly.

And where are these humans-not-Adam’s-descendants?  Are people supposed to believe that they all conveniently died out at Noah’s Flood or something? Why would God wait billions of years for evolution to do its thing if He was going to engineer Adam & Eve out of nothing regardless?

Because God knew that A&E’s kids would need spouses?

“Swamidass claims that Genesis appears to require biological humans outside of Adam and Eve’s family line because after Cain murders Abel and leaves his parents, he fears that he will be killed, he acquires a wife, and he builds a city,” O’Neil added.

Sheesh. Biblical prohibitions against incest didn’t exist at the beginning, it’s that simple.

Christian philosophy professor Michael Murray, who previously taught at Franklin & Marshall College…

He is not a Christian. A quick bio:

Segue

h ttps://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/michael-murray/profile

Michael J. Murray oversees the program departments of the John Templeton Foundation. Before joining the Foundation, he was the Arthur and Katherine Shadek Humanities Professor of Philosophy at Franklin and Marshall College.

He received his BA from Franklin and Marshall and his MA and Ph.D from the University of Notre Dame. His research focuses on two primary areas. The first is seventeenth century history of philosophy and theology, with a particular focus on the work of Gottfried Leibniz. The second is contemporary philosophy of religion. His most recent work focuses on the problem of evil and animal suffering, and cognitive and evolutionary accounts of the origin and persistence of religious belief and practice.

Murray is not just sock-puppeting for Swamidass on behalf of their common employer, the Templeton Foundation. He might be Swamidass’ direct boss, too.

End segue

[Murray] recently commented on Swamidass’ researches and said that he believes “we have arrived at the point where we can confidently affirm that the basic evolutionary story is not the threat to Christian orthodoxy that we once feared, and not because we had to compromise on orthodoxy.”

“My view is that recent findings in genetics and paleontology have shown that our best scientific theories and data do not rule out a historical Adam and Eve,” Murray told Fox in a statement, adding that new developments show that “for all we know, there might have been a pair that is the ancestor of all extant humans or extant Homo sapiens.”

He added that there previously appeared to be an “emerging consensus among both secular scientists and scientists of faith that the relevant empirical data was flatly inconsistent with an ancestral pair.”

“Emerging consensus” is a phrase you will hear only from globalists. Ditto “scientist of faith”.

However, recent developments show that an “ancestral pair is not flatly ruled out as was previously thought.”

Biology professor Nathan Lents, who teaches at John Jay College, told the outlet that such developments have made Adam and Eve “more plausible.”

“I would not say that there is any evidence, historical or scientific, in favor of the existence of Adam and Eve, as they are presented in the Bible,” Lents told Fox. “However, there have been developments in our understanding of ancestry and genetics that allow for the possibility of universal ancestors of the entire human population in the surprisingly recent past.”

Swamidass told the outlet that “in making space for Adam and Eve, secular scientists have an opportunity to offer an olive branch to religious communities.”

“I’m encouraged to see that many religious leaders … have been eager to take the olive branch,” he wrote. “For those seeking to advance science in a fractured society, this is very good news indeed.”

Lents is not a Templeton grantee so far as I could confirm, although I still suspect the association. Instead, he’s a flaming NYC homosexual who mocks God and marriage with a “husband” and two adopted children. While searching, I found another Templeton prodigy: Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health.

Nathan H. Lents and S. Joshua Swamidass: The lesson of Kitzmiller: Science bridges divides

h ttps://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/nathan-h-lents-and-s-joshua-swamidass-the-lesson-of-kitzmiller-science-bridges-divides/article_829435cc-154f-5940-bf26-2456da663965.html

By Nathan H. Lents and S. Joshua Swamidass, 28 December 2020

Fifteen years ago, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones delivered his landmark ruling: Intelligent design is not scientific, but is religious in nature, and therefore, should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory in public schools. This was an important victory as the court protected the scientific community’s voice on a matter of education policy in the U.S.

Sounds more like the court protected the scientific community’s beliefs from being tested. The exact opposite of the scientific method.

Segue

h ttps://quote.org/quote/we-find-that-intelligent-design-fails-on-590705

We find that intelligent design fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that intelligent design is a science … intelligent design violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

The reason it’s called “intelligent design” is SPECIFICALLY to NOT invoke the supernatural. Maybe space aliens seeded life on Earth? ID wouldn’t disagree. It says only that life AS UNDERSTOOD ON EARTH could not have come about in a stepwise fashion a la evolution. No deity needed.

the argument of irreducible complexity, central to intelligent design, employees the same flawed and a logically contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the nineteen eighties;

“We rejected the last argument against evolution so this new argument cannot be true, either.”

intelligent design’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community …

“It makes the smart people sadfaced!”

End segue

Evolutionists have never had a response to Intelligent Design. I always wondered why they didn’t even try. My guess at the time had been that they were simply trying the silent treatment. Turns out, they got a tame judge to declare ID a religion so they could debunk it as nonscientific.

Even so, 2005 is a decade after 1996’s Darwin’s Black Box was published. The founding book of ID.

In these divided times, it is easy to despair as the culture wars cloud nearly every public policy debate. Vaccines for the coronavirus are being distributed as we speak. Debates about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines have a far more direct impact on the public than the controversy in Dover. Judge Jones’s findings, however, remind us that science can cut through the culture war.

By using tame judges! Scientific method, ho!

While the origins debate is often framed as a zero-sum game with religious creationism on one side and evolutionary science on the other, the space for common ground is large and growing.

An evolutionist would also disagree here. One cannot have randomly-generated life and intentionally-generated life simultaneously. But no, we must have UNITY!

The [year after the Dover case], Francis Collins published “The Language of God,” in which he explained how his Christian faith does not force him into conflict with evolutionary science. Collins later became the director of the National Institutes of Health and remains a strong advocate for science. Fittingly, he won this year’s Templeton Prize for his work in modeling how faith and science can be reconciled.

Here, Swamidass the Templeton grantee shills for Collins the Templeton Prize winner.

Like [the plaintiff’s witnesses] Forrest and Miller, we too are an unlikely pair. You won’t often see an evangelical Christian and a gay secular humanist teaming up, but we have crisscrossed the country together, speaking with audiences from the “liberal elites” at Columbia University to the “biblically conservative” at Concordia University. We have found solidarity in modeling what we believe is a better way forward for a culture at war with itself. We’ve also found friendship.

No Christian would publicly & voluntarily associate with an openly unrepentant and blasphemous Sodomite. Least of all, to serve as an example that we can coexist with sexually depraved God-haters.

The controversies about origins will remain. Last year we took up the baton from Forrest and Miller and refuted the latest claims of intelligent design in the pages of the journal Science, a move that put Swamidass at risk of alienation from his spiritual community.

Soon after, Lents endorsed Swamidass’ book explaining the possibility of a genealogical Adam and Eve, putting him at risk among his atheist colleagues.

Lents’ claim to fame appears to be his making some defense against the killshot of Intelligent Design. This is ironic because Lents himself, being sodomite, is an Intelligent Design counterexample. Evolution’s only measure of an organism’s success is reproductive capacity, which in the case of a homosexual, is a deliberate zero. Adoption is not DNA propagation. Neither could evolution have made allowances for IVF or other fertility workarounds.

If evolution was true then all non-reproductive sexual instincts would have been screened out very, very early in the process.

 We reached outside our echo chambers and followed the example of the non-religious philosopher, the Catholic scientist, and the Republican federal judge who, 15 years ago, worked together to protect science from political encroachment.

This is the most pathetic “hello fellow white people!” act that I’ve seen. “I am Swampy-Ass the Christian scientist, emphasis on scientist, I have many scientific credentials, and see how I am friends with a man that Jesus would consider a pervert and child molester! Do you Christians not want to be friends with him, too? Join me in the new scientific discovery that God is only MOSTLY a creator!”

Why are we taking these risks?

What risks? You accepted $25k to shovel lies at one of the most nonviolent demographics on the planet. You want to take a risk? Walk into a mosque and explain to them how Lents is a good Muslim because he has an underage sex toy just like Mohammed did. Then put an idol of Ganesha on their altar and call it peace and coexistence to their faces. Then tell them you get paid to prove their religion needs scientific updating because science is not a religion.

In these fraught times, political meddling in science threatens the common good and needlessly puts lives at risk. The anniversary of Kitzmiller reminds us that, while science is too often a front in the culture wars, when we look past our differences, we see our common goal: the betterment of a world that we have no choice but to share.

This claim to being apolitical would have been more convincing if the authors hadn’t opened with celebrating a judge declaring an exclusively secular, scientific argument, Intelligent Design, to be religious.

Nathan H. Lents, Ph.D., is a professor of biology at John Jay College and the City University of New York. S. Joshua Swamidass, Ph.D., is an associate professor of pathology and immunology in the School of Medicine at Washington University.

So, Beltway Swampy is a junior peer of Francis Collins. Collins is affiliated with Wash. U. St. Louis by way of the recently-funded Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) program.

Christianity is under direct, organized and well-funded opposition from shadowy authorities across the globe. Thanks to global communications, we can now see them for who & what they are.

And thanks to Christ, we can already detect their lies.

4 thoughts on “Templeton Foundation Converges Adam & Eve

  1. Mr. Science and the Swami’s Ass join forces to tell me who my own Father is. About whom they are clueless. Satan Inc. picks up the tab.

    I think it was PK Dick’s ‘Divine Invasion’ where God had been banned from Earth and the world was divvied-up between the Scientific Legate and the Islamo-Christian Church.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “In his GAE model…”

    Pronounced “gay”, I suppose. Not shocked.

    ““Emerging consensus” is a phrase you will hear only from globalists. Ditto “scientist of faith”.”

    Hey now. I am a scientist. I am also devout. Don’t lump as all together.

    Like

  3. You’re a Christian scientist, not a ‘scientist of faith’. You don’t practice a ‘faith tradition’.

    Wait, that doesn’t sound right either. Let’s go with ‘scientist of Christ’.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s