It is universal amongst cultures of the world to have a mythology about origins. In a pre-scientific and pre-evangelistic world, there would have been thousands of such creation mythologies, each claiming to possess the truth about origins. Evangelism by the Abrahimicists have largely destroyed these various mythologies, replacing them with its own version of origins. In pre-scientific societies, these myths were simply accepted on faith. But today, we have the technologies to verify the truth-value of these myths. To that end, I ask the following questions;


1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively? Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, the average longevity of humans then, and the migration patterns used by humans to populate the globe?

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

3) Might archeology and paleontology cast some light on these?

Is it likely that the outcome of such investigations would contradict or corroborate the accounts from our various mythologies?

@huxley,

Good to see that you opened a thread on the same questions in raised in the other thread a few minutes ago. Basically, a few answers (or rather, introductory pointers) have been offered there, and perhaps it might be helpful to repost them here and invite contributions to help the thread?


Here then: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-136330.0.html#msg2298885

huxley:

Do you guys think there might be an independent source, extrabiblical, to verify your various side of the story? Might the scientific method have something to say about origins;

Talking about "independent, extrabiblical sources" would go beyond what many people call the "scientific method" - that's why the reference to teleological (philosophical) enquiries. What does this entail? It would require us to examine what is usually called the "scientific method" - and which "science" would that be? The "natural" sciences (such as chemistry, mathematics and physics)? Or to a broader range of what is actually "science"?

When we carefully examine this point, we find that what many people claim or otherwise discredit as "science" may be surprisingly off the mark and prejudiced. Upfront, I would say that there are quite a number of leading scientists who are not plain honest in their assumptions.

huxley:

1) Might it be possible to use the successful track record of genetic investigation to resolve the questions definitively?

Possibly - but what "genetic investigative methods" would we be looking at? Let's take evolutionary biology, for instance - there again, we might ask what model of evolution would be most suitable for this enquiry - Lamarkian, Darwinian, or Neo-Evolutionary? To choose any of these or others not mentioned would require regorous justification as to why that particular model over the others. This was why I stated that we should not lose sight of the "model" employed so far in this enquiry - theology. If we go on from there to another model (say, the teleological one), then we should further scrutinize it before applying it.

huxley:

Could genetic tell us where the first humans lived, how long ago, and the average longevity of humans then?

Genetics could offer some explanations (based on any of the afore-mentioned models) to some of the enquiries; but let us not be so self-assuming as to adopt a jaundiced idea that it would offer the most satisfactory answers to the whole range of queries on this topic. Infact, I risk the guilt of stating upfront that definitelyy would not (because I have certain queries which are not within the range of genetics investigative models).

huxley:

2) Might geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics be able to cast some light into the question of the formation of the earth, its age and its evolution.

Possibly; but as stated earlier, these all would have immense contributions to offer in certain aspects of our queries (whatever they might be). However, I am not sure that any one of these (or even in combination) would be able to sufficiently account for thr very origin of life and matter - they may offer explanatory models for understanding the transformations of geological, paleontoligical, astronomical, and physical changes - but all these are looking at the "aftermath", not at the very first cause of existence.

huxley:

3) Might archeology and paleonotology cast some light on these?

Again, possibly - and yet again, these models of investigation would not be able to tell you with a higher degree of certainty WHO Adam actually was. When you look at the Genesis account, for instance, you find certain things mentioned there that archeology and paleontology would simply not be adequate models of enquiry into those things. Example? How do those models account for origin of the soul and spirit of man?

huxley:

If yes, why are you not appealing to these for succor for your points of view?

Like I said, the reason is basically that the thread so far was created more for theological enquiries than for a teleological one. As you can see, no one model of investigation has a concensus - creationists are not all agreed as to a single model of investigating "creation" (is it young-earth or old-earth, for instance). So it is with any teleological investigation - they are not all having a concensus on ths and other questions of this nature.

The question now is: what would you rather offer as a more satisfying model - and how can your readers be sure that you would not lead them with some measure of hubris? As a reknowned thinker once said - "Hubris is a sin - whether in religion or science". Words on marbel.

Many blessings.

good day for this one again?

huxley:

good day for this one again?

Ahh, there - I knew I read someone else point out the difference between theology and teleology.

@syrup
I like your name oh:-)
Here is my thoughts, certainly there are issues where one explanation would be widely accepted, for instance when someone falls ill and has the following symptoms a fever, a headache, pains in the joints and so on, a test is run on this person say for malaria, and if those parasites are found the person is treated with anti malaria pills.
How about newton's gravitational laws, would be serious fool hardy for one to go about building any structure and disregarding it, better yet how can you login into nairaland without an internet connection there are things that are universal and that's my point.
Are you a scientist? Can you say with absolute certainty that there is no method that would be widely accepted to date the earth just like newtons laws.